Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0203 � �. , - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1976 7 p.m. - 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 p.m. , February 3, 1976, in the City Hall Council Chambers. � II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS, WILLIAM SEIDLER, MARY K. VAN DE MARK, S. ROY WILSON Others Present: Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner L�lilson seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the January 13, 1976 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. The minutes of the meeting of January 27, 1976 were amended as follows: Page 4, Item B, 2nd Paragraph under New Application Forms. The last sentence was revised to read, "The discussion was continued , to the next study session.". �"' Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Plotion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Seidler excused Commissioner Berkey from the public hearing on the first case (CUP O1-76) , due to a conflict of interest. A. CASE ^!0. CUP 01-76, LAMBETH HOUSE, APPLICANT. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to a low for t e construction of a 100 unit housing facility for the elderly, to be constructed under Section 202 of the 1974 Housing Act; on property located on the west side of Highway 74, north of Haystack Road extended. Paul Williams reviewed the above case and stated that a study session was held prior to the meeting, at which time staff answered questions from the Commission in reference to this case. P�Ir. Williams showed 10 colored slides and also a map of the proposed site, explaining the entire project. He explained that the proposed site is presently zoned R-1 and that the proposed zoning would be �... "P" (Public Institutional Use). The dilemma is the Zoning Ordinance is in effect but the Zoning Map is not in effect. Staff felt that this project would comply with the new zoning map, if the project is approved. -1- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -2- FEBRUARY 3, 1976 Staff felt that this project should be redesigned for the fol- lowing three reasons: 1. Mitigation of Noise - The noise level at 200' is unacceptable under the Transportation Noise Element of the Palm Desert General Plan. Noise mitigation should be required. 2. Number of access points should be reconsidered due to the proximity of an intersection at Haystack Road and Highway 74. ;�,,, 3. Density and Site Utilization - The entire five (5) acres owned by St, Margaret�'s Church should be considered in the design of the project. The total complex could make use of the Palm Valley Channel for recreational and aesthetic pur- poses. Due to the above three reasons, staff recommended continuing this case to the March 3, 1976, meeting of the Planning Commission. Letters from BYRON BENTLEY, EVERETT WOOD, and MRS. W. B. WESTOVER were read to the Commission. All expressed concern that development of this site would eliminate access to homestead property west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel . Chairman Seidler asked if the applicant was present and if he wished to address the Commission to comment on the staff report or any of the conditions. FATHER HARRISON, Rector - St. Margaret' s Church, 47-535 Highway 74, gave a brief rundown of why his church was sponsoring the project, stating that they realized the real need for housing for the elderly. Mr. ROBERT CUMMINGS, Consultant on Housing for the Elderly, 16355 Wimbleton Lane, Huntington Beach, California, commented that St. ,,,,,, Margaret's is the sponsor of Lambeth House, Inc. The directors of Lambeth House, Inc. would be elected by the members of St. Margaret's Church. The project would be made possible by loans from the Fe- deral Government, which would not be the sponsor of the project, just the lender of the funds. Chairman Seidler asked who owns the property. Mr. CUMMINGS stated that Lambeth House, Inc. would be the owner. Chairman Seidler inquired if the total cost of the project would include curbs and gutters, undergrounding utilities, etc. Mr. CUMMINGS stated the loan does not include improvements to any property that is not a part of the project. Chairman Seidler asked if any money was provided for maintenance, or was the loan a development loan. Mr. CUMMINGS stated that maintenance funds were set aside for the life of the loan. Chairman Seidler asked if any research had been done on the median income for this area. � MINUTES PLAN�ING COMMISSION MEETING -3- FEBRUARY 3, 1976 Mr. CUMMINGS stated figures established by HUD showed the median income was slightly in excess of $10,000 and possibly in 1976 this figure would increase to approximately $10,750. Mr. CUMMINGS explained that 2/3 of the elderly (over 62 years of age) had an incom e of less than $10,000 and that 1/2 had an income of under $5,000. Persons living in the project would be required to pay 25% of their income. This 25% would � not include food service. There is no subsidy for food ser- vice. Mr. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111, Palm Desert, Ca- lifornia, spoke in favor of the project. He discussed the dia- grams which were attached to the staff report concerning the noise levels. There were no easements discovered during a search conducted through the title company. Chairman Seidler stated that since Buildings B, C, and D would be two-story, this would be undesirable due to the fact the residents of the project would be elderly. Mr. RICCIARDI stated that the residents of the proposed project would have to have statements from their physicians stating they were in good physical health prior to moving into the project. These would be people who are able to get around on their own and are self-sufficient. Commissioner Van de Mark asked if there were passageways from the individual buildings to the dining area. Mr. RICCIARDI said that each building has a covered passageway to the dining area. `�""" Chairman Seidler asked if the shuttle bus program would be a part of the project itself or would it be funded through the federal loan. Mr. RICCIARDI stated the shuttle bus would not be a part of the HUD grant but part of the cost handled by St. Margaret's Church. Commissioner Van de Mark inquired as to the width of the drive- ways. Mr. RICCIARDI stated that the driveway would be 24' in width which would be adequate for two-way traffic. He further stated that most of the residents would not have cars of their own. Studies indicated that 1 out of every 4 residents would have a car, hence the reason for the shuttle bus. At this time, Chairman Seidler asked if anyone else was present who would like to speak in favor of the project. No one else came forward, so Chairman Seidler asked if anyone was present who would like to speak against the project. Mr. WILLIAM WESTOVER, 7900 Bateman, Sun Valley, California, stated that he has been a property owner in the hillside area �,., west of the proposed project for the last 20 years. He re- presented himself and 15 other homesteaders, each owning ap- proximately 5 acres of property. They had purchased this pro- perty for retirement purposes and had spent considerable money on installing fire hydrants, telephone lines and power lines in the area up and down the hillside. His major concern was that if the project went through, it would close off any future access roads to their property. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -4- FEBRUARY 3, 1976 Chairman Seidler asked if the only access to their property was through the McKeon project. Mr. WESTOVER stated that he did not know of any other access than what they had at present. At this time, ALDA KHUEN, Skyward Way and Highway 74, Palm Desert, California, spoke in favor of the project stating there was no noise problem near her residence. � Chairman Seidler then asked if the applicant wished to make any further comments. Father HARRISON reiterated that this would be housing for the elderly who are capable of taking care of themselves; this would not be a convalescent home type project. Chairman Seidler recommended that staff continue the matter so that the Commission could discuss the comments made at tonight's meeting. He recommended that staff (1) look into the problem of the speed of traffic on Highway 74 and the hazard it would create in gaining access to the road and the proposed project, (2) look into access to the property west of the proposed project, stating the applicant has a parcel which is not being used for access and staff should have some long range plan to assure the property owners on the hillside of access in the future, (3) determine what rationale should be used in determining the density of this type project. Chairman Seidler further stated he was not entirely convinced that the entire site should be used in planning this project. Chairman Seidler stated that since the Public Hearing was left � open, he would like to know about the size of the buildings and if the church was going to be used for recreational purposes for the project. Mr. RICCIARDI stated that the size of the basic units was set up by HUD and that an efficiency apartment would be 400 sq. ft. The one-bedroom units would be 500 sq. ft. �r. CUMMINGS stated that this type of loan was made to the churches in order for them to use the church facilities for recreational purposes. Commissioner 4Jilson voiced his concern over the fact that if 1 out of every 4 residents would have their own vehicle, there might be some parking problems. Mr. CUMMINGS stated that studies made indicated that less than 25% of the residents will have their own cars and that the parking re- quirements meet the HUD criteria. Mr. WESTOVER asked if this project was going to enhance the total property values of that area. Chairman Seidler stated the Palm Desert General Plan called for providing housing for all age groups. This project would help the � community meet some of these objectives. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -5- FE3RUARY 3, 1976 Commissioner Van de Mark stated that the project was necessary for part of our community. Commissioner Mullins moved for continuance to allow more input on the major items of concern. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion to continue the discussion to the March 3, 1976 meeting. The motion for continuance was unanimously carried. B. CASE N0. CUP 02-76, MARIA C. PALEAN, APPLICANT. Request for `""' a 1200 sq. ft. restaurant within the Palms to Pines shopping center, located on the E1 Paseo side of the center, east of Plaza Way. Paul Williams explained the above case and recommended that the Planning Commission approve by Planning Commission Resolution No. 121 said case with the attached nine (9) Conditions of Ap- proval . Chairman Seidler asked if all property owners within 300' of the location were notified. Mr. Williams stated that they were including Sandpiper residents and other property owners in the Palms to Pines shopping center. Mr. Williams further stated that no letters were received voicing objections to the proposed project. Chairman Seidler asked if the applicant was present. MARY DWYER, 73-950 Shadow Lane, Palm Desert, California, spoke as an interpreter for MARIA C. PALEAN. Mrs. DWYER stated that Ms. PALEAN had been in the restaurant business for quite some time and that she had fine support and sponsors. She further stated that most of the restaurant' s business would be in the evening and that '�'" parking would not create a problem. Chairman Seidler asked if there was anyone else present who would like to speak in favor of the project. MAX REEFER, 45 Palma Drive, Rancho Mirage, California, (Manager of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center) spoke as a representative of the property owners in the center and stated that they were not opposed to the project. He further stated that there was only one other restaurant business in the center and that it was only open for breakfast and lunch, so there would be no conflict involved. They would be happy to see Ms. PALEAN as a tenant and felt that her res- taurant would enhance the center and provide a fine eating place. Chairman Seidler asked if anyone was present who was opposed to the project. No one being present, Chairman Seidler closed the Public Hearing on CUP 02-76. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner hlullins seconded the motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 121. The motion was carried unanimously. VII. OLD BUSINESS - None � M MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -6- FEBRUARY 3, 1976 VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Request from Coachella Valley County Water District that the Planning Commission review the two proposed wastewater collection line extensions within the City, for compliance with the General Plan. Paul Williams explained the proposed extension of the sewer line off Joshua Road and the construction of the sewer line on Ryway `'�"' Place. He recommended the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 122 in relation to Ryway Place, but stated that the Joshua Road extension did not conform with the Palm Desert �eneral Plan. P�r. Williams and the Commissioners agreed that the wording on the resolution (Planning Commission Resolution No. 122) should be changed to read as follows: A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, finding that the proposed project on Ryway Place to be constructed by the Coachella Valley County Water District is in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan and the project for the Joshua Road Wastewater Collection Line is not in conformance with the Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Van de Mark moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 122 be approved as corrected. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IX. DESIGN REVIE4J BOARD ITEMS - None X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None �... XI. COP�MENTS Paul Williams stated that the slurry seal project was in progress starting on the north side of town and then moving to the south side of the highway, around March 1, 1976, with completion of the of the project possibly being the end of March. Chairman Seidler recommended that staff get together with Father Harrison for a meeting on a date other than March 3rd and that possibly the church could send a representative to the March 3, 197C meeting if Father Harrison was unable to attend. XII. ADJOURNMEPdT Commissioner Van de Mark moved, Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. C� A. WILLIAMS, Secretary """ ATTEST: ��' ti I LI M R. ID rman