Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0330 F � , MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 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 Chairman Wilson at 7:01 p.m. , March 30, 1976, in the City I�all Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE � III . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, GLORIA KELLY, 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 Gloria Kelly, new Planning Commissioner appointed by City Council action of March 25, 1976, was sworn in by City Clerk Harvey L. Hurlburt. Chairman Wilson welcomed Mrs. Kelly to the Planning Commission. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Commissioner Berkey moved and Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the March 16, 1976, meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None �"` VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson explained the Public Hearing procedures. He also stated that the Commission had met in a study session prior to tonight's meeting. This study session was for purposes of clarification of the items on the agenda. No decisions were made at the study session. A. Continued Case CUP 01-76, LAMBETH HOUSE, INC, Applicant Request for a 100-unit housing for the elderly project on 3 acres, located on the west side of Highway 74, north of Haystack Road extended. (Continued from March 3, 1976. ) Paul Williams reviewed the request from Lambeth House, Inc. and stated this was the third continuance of a Public Hearing on this case. Mr. Williams stated that staff had received correspondence from a representative of the applicant requesting continuance to the first Planning Commission meeting in May, due to the fact their consultant, Mr. Cummings, is going to be out of the country. Staff recommended continuing the Public Hearing to May 4, 1976. Mr. Williams further stated that a letter reference the continuance had been sent out to all interested persons. ,,,� Chairman Wilson asked if anyone either in favor of or opposed to the project was present. No one being present, Chairman Wilson asked the Commission their feelings on this case. Commissioner Van de Mark moved for continuance of the Public Hearing on Case No. CUP 01-76 to the May 4, 1976 meeting and also requested staff to notify St. Margaret's of the correct date. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0, with Commissioner Berkey abstaining. -1- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 1976 B. Case TT 6671, FRED RICE, Applicant Request for Approval of a Tentative Tract Map for a 20-acre; 100-unit planned residential development located on the east side of Portola between E1 Cortez and Goleta. (Related Case CUP 03-75) Paul Williams reviewed the request and stated this was the second step in a project which was originally presented as a Development Plan. A map of the area, site plan, and slides were shown to the Commission. Mr. Williams further """ stated that staff did notice this project to all property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Williams also reviewed the background of the project including location, zoning, gross acreage, etc. He further stated this project is in compliance with the Palm Desert General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The Conditions of Approval were also reviewed and a correction was noted as pertaining to Number 20, as follows: City Council was to be deleted and Design Review Board & Planning Commission is to be added. At this time, Mr. Williams stated that staff recommended the approval of Planning Commission Resolution Number 130, subject to compliance with the 20 Conditions of Approval . Since there were no questions of staff by the Commission, Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. FRED RICE, 73-120 Fiddleneck, Palm Desert, Developer of the Project, spoke to the Commission and stated that he was in agreement with the staff reference their requirements and conditions of approval . He did, however, ask that the curb and gutter requirements for that portion south of Catalina be waived until Phase III. He further stated they were only planning on completing twenty (20) units at a time to keep the costs down. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the �"'" Commission either in favor of or opposed to the project. MARGIE CRAIG, 74-030 E1 Cortez Way, Palm Desert, had a general comment to make reference the project. She questioned the type of fencing that would be a part of the project in the area to the rear of her property, which is the thrid house from Portola on E1 Cortez Way. Mr. Williams showed the landscaping plans for the project and explained that there would be physical landscaping along the existing wood fence. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on Tentative Tract 6671 and opened the case for discussion between the members of the Commission. Commissioner Berkey questioned whether or not anything would be gained if the curb and gutter requirement was not waived. Paul Williams stated that the widening of the frontage south of Portola would afford a turn-off lane and provide for off-street parking. Commissioner Van De Mark felt that the southerly approach to the tract should be widened as traffic could possible be a major problem with the development. „� Chairman Wilson pointed out that the Commission wrestled with many of the problems related to this project when it accepted the Environmental Impact Report on the project. Commissioner Berkey moved to approve Planning Commission Resolution Number 130, subject to the twenty conditions, with Number 20 being corrected as noted previously. Commissioner Van De Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Case CUP 04-76, C. ROBERT HUBBARD, Applicant. Request for approval of 19 additional spaces at the Silver Spur Mobile Home Park. -2- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 1976 Paul Williams reviewed the applicant's request and gave a background of the case. A map of the proposed additions was shown. Mr. Williams stated that this case had been duly noticed as a Public Hearing and no adverse reactions were received. He also reviewed the nine conditions of approval . At this time, Mr. Williams stated that staff recommended approval of the request, subject to the nine Conditions of Approval . ""�"" Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. C. ROBERT HUBBARD, 22 Stanford Drive, Rancho Mirage, applicant, explained the background of the Silver Spur Mobile Home Park. His main objection was to Condition Number Seven pertaining to Riverside County Department of Fire Protection requirements. He stated he had never received anything from them reference their requirements and that the first time he learned of said requirements was when he received the staff report prior to tonight's meeting. He requested a meeting with himself, staff, and a representative of the Fire Department reference the above requirements. As he had understood them, these requirements would call for hydrants to be placed throughout the entire park, instead of just for the additional 19 spaces. He felt the park already had adequate protection and he objected to the cost that would have to be paid if the entire park were a part of the above-mentioned requirements. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Com- mission either in favor of or opposed to the project. No one being present, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on CUP 04-76, and opened the case for discussion among the members of the Commisison. Commissioner Kelly asked staff if the requirements in Condition Seven per- tained to the entire Park. Mr. Williams stated he would have to check with the Riverside County Department of Fire Protection for a clarification on "" this condition. Commissioner Van De Mark asked for a rewrite on this condition. Mr. Williams stated that it would have to be modified at a meeting between the Riverside County Department of Fire Protection, the Applicant, and the staff. Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Hubbard if the above meeting would be agreeable with him. Mr. Hubbard felt the above was reasonable. Commissioner Van De Mark moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 131, subject to compliance with the nine conditions, with a revision to Number Seven as follows: The applicant shall provide fire protection as outlined in the letter of March 19, 1976, from the Riverside County Department of Fire Protection, subject to a meeting between the Fire Agency, the Director of Environmental Services, and the Applicant. Also, delete Subsections A through E under Condition Number Seven. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Variance 02-76, JOHN MANDIC, Applicant Request for a variance from the requirements of Section 25.10-7.04 � of the Zoning Ordinance, Minimum Side Yard Setback. Both Paul Williams and Steve Fleshman reviewed the above case with the com- mission. Slides of the general area were shown, along with an explanation of the various setbacks in the area, ranging from thirty feet down to five feet. Staff recommended approval of Variance 02-76, with a correction to be noted on the resolution as follows: Change West to East in the top portion and also in the first paragraph of the resolution. Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. -3- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 1976 JOHN MANDIC, 73-130 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert, spoke to the Commission on his request for a Variance. ROBERT KNIGHT, 45-654 Verba Santa, Palm Desert objected to the relaxing of restrictions. He stated he wasn't actually opposed to Mr. Mandic's request, he was just making an objection in general to the noise problem due to his feelings that the houses were to close �n. «... John Mandic stated his request for a Variance, if approved, would not affect Mr. Knight's house, as said house is two lots away from his own property. Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Mandic' s house was not causing an interference, he was just objecting to this type of development. There being no further comments, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on Variance 02-76 and asked the commission for their feelings on the request. A short discussion ensued reference this variance exceeding the typical setback requirements. Commissioner Kelly made a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution Number 132, with the noted corrections. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. CUP 05-76, JOHNSON & BARBATTI , Applicants Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a combination sit-down and take-out restaurant in the C-1, S.P. Zone District and a commercial parking lot in the R-3 Zone District. "`""' The request for the above case was reviewed by Paul Williams. He showed various maps and plans to the Commission. He also explained the sixteen Conditions of Approval . He further stated that staff recommended approving the above request, subject to said conditions. At this time, Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. IRA JOHNSON, 45-800 Apache, Indian Wells, Applicant, stated he was in complete agreement with the staff's conditions. He then introduced MR. DAN FOGERTY, 15 Crusero Court, San Pablo, California, a representative of Technical Equities - Leaseholder with the applicant. Mr. Fogerty explained the various aspects of the proposed restaurant, including name, menu, type of management, etc. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission either in favor of or opposed to the project. DORA WELLS, 44-855 San Jacinto, Palm Desert, stated she was the owner of property which is next door to the proposed parking lot. She had no ob�ections to the restaurant itself, only to the parking lot as she felt its construction would depreciate the value of her property. She also was concerned about the traffic congestion situation, the noise, and the possible hazard to the children who live in the area. � ROBERT KING, 44-841 San Jacinto, Palm Desert, also spoke against the pro- posed parking lot for basically the same reasons as mentioned by Mrs. Wells. Mr. Fogerty stated the only reason they were adding the parking lot was because it was required by the City. -4- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 1976 GEORGE WASSEN, 44-855 San Jacinto, Palm Desert, also spoke against the parking lot for the same reasons listed above. BRAD BAISDON, 1134 North Calle Marcus, Palm Springs, spoke to the Commission as a representative of the Desert Christian Church, which is next door to the proposed parking lot. His main objection was to the selling of liquor at the restaurant location due to his feeling that this would interfere with their Church Services. �..� IRA JOHNSON, stated that a masonry wall would be installed on the north property line of the parking lot to help cut down on noise, etc. DAN FOGERTY stated the parking lot would be landscaped and properly walled to buffer off noise. Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing at this time and asked the Commission to take the matter into discussion. The Commission was in agreement that the only opposition so far was to the parking lot and not the restaurant. The Commission was very concerned with the parking conditions for the entire area. The general consensus was that there should be further discussion of this matter at another time. Commissioner Berkey moved for a continuance to May 4, 1976, on CUP 05-76, and also requested that staff get together with the developer in order to come up with an alternative solution to the parking situation. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. A short recess was called at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. F. DP O1-76, SUNRISE CORPORATION, Applicant �"" Request for Development Plan approval of 84 units on a 20-acre portion of a 364-acre planned residential development known as Desert Air. Paul Williams reviewed the above case with the Commission and stated this case was reviewed a month ago relative to that portion of the project which was located in the city limits of Rancho Mirage. Further, since the major portion of the Desert Air project had been recognized by a lead agency, the only issue tonight would be that portion of the project which was located in the city limits of Palm Desert. Mr. Williams also stated that since this is the first Development Plan to be considered by the City, the staff had broken the Conditions of Approval down into two sections: Standard Conditions and Special Conditions. He reviewed the nine standard conditions which apply to the project and also the nine special conditions. WILLIAM BONE, #14 Laronda, Rancho Mirage, applicant, stated that he was in agreement with the nine Standard Conditions listed but that he had some ob- jections to Numbers One, Four, Five and Six under the Special Conditions. These objections were as follows: 1. Under Number One: The main objection to this condition reference undergrounding was the cost. Mr. Bone stated that in his agreement with the City of Rancho Mirage, the undergrounding requirement along ,� Monterey was excluded. 2. Under Number Four: Mr. Bone felt that since the cities of Rancho Mirage and Palm Springs did not require pool fencing, the City of Palm Desert should not require it either; but, he would comply if he had to. 3. Under Number Five: Reference the equestrain trail - Mr. Bone stated that he would make the trail wider if that would solve the problem. 4. Under Number Six: Mr. Bone objected to "4 units" being considered as one "building". -5- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 1976 At this time, Chairman L�ilson closed the Public Hearing on DP 01-76, as there was no one present in the audience wishing to speak either in favor of or opposed to the project. There was a lengthy discussion among the members of the Commission reference the undergrounding requirement. It was the general consensus that Special Condition Number One should be left as is. However, Commissioner Berkey „�,.� made a suggestion that possibly the City of Palm Desert could cooperate in some way with the applicant and that this decision for City Coopera- tion should be made by the City Council . Reference the pool fencing, it was decided to reword Special Condition Number Four as follows: All swimming pools shall have a 5' fence with a 4' self-latching gate. Each pool area shall provide solar panels. No gas heated pools will be permitted. Reference Number Five, the major dilemma was the closed wall concept. Staff was directed to reword Special Condition Number Five. The rewording is as follows: The equestrian trail along the south border of the project is not approved at this time. Alternative designs of the trail system shall be submitted for further consideration as a part of the Design Review Process. Under Special Condition Number Six, One building (4 units) is to be deleted and replaced with Sufficient. Commissioner Berkey moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number �.., 133, with the revisions as listed above. Commissioner Van De Mark seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Berkey also made a motion that the City Council give considera- tion in relation to working with the applicant on the cost of the under- grounding south of the subject property. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Case lOC, ROY W. CARVER, Applicant Planning Commission review of Design Review Board action approving a signage plan for the shops at Palms-to-Pines, Phase III . Paul Williams reviewed the above with the Commission and both signs in question were shown to the Commission. Staff's recommendation was to approve Planning Commission Resolution Number 134, with a limit on the lettering on Sign "B" to one complimentary color. Chairman Wilson stated that even though this was not a Public Hearing, the applicant was welcome to speak to the Commission. BERNARD LEUNG, 73-960 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, Architect for the Project, objected that they were "not given the liberty of being individual " in """' relation to the conformity of the signs. He felt that this would result in a stereotype. ROY W. CARVER, 110 West Las Tunas, San Gabriel , Applicant, spoke to the Commission and stated he would like to work with the Planning Commission to set up a basic sign criteria so that he does not have to come before the Commission each time a sign is to go up. He also stated that he wanted to make clear the following items: 1. The 1' x 8' sign is to be lit. 2. The smaller sign will not be lit. -6- � � MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 1976 3) He agreed with staff on their request for one color to be used in the lettering on the signs. After a discussion among the members of the Commission reference the above, Commissioner Van De Mark made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 134, with the following changes: '�' Subsection 2, under Item #2: Delete background and. Add a Subsection Number 4 to read as follows: Sign "B" may be back-lit provided that said lighting is properly screened from public view. Commissioner Kelly seconded the above motion. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Case TT 7263, SUNRISE CORPORATION, Ap�licant Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map for an 84-unit planned residential development on 20 acres, located on the west side of Monterey, south of Magnesia Falls Drive extended. Paul Williams reviewed this request and stated this was the same issue as DP 01-76, with Number 20 under the Conditions to be revised as follows: 20. Lot 11 shall be a part of Lot 8 and the Equestrian Trail concept restudied. "�` Mr. Bone had the same comments on this case reference the undergrounding. Commissioner Berkey moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 135, with its 21 Conditions of Approval and with Number 20 being revised as lsited above. Commissioner Van De Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Actions of the Design Review Board meeting of March 23, 1976. Mr. Williams reviewed the five cases which had gone before the Design Review Board at their meeting of March 23, 1976 and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 136, with reference to the Design Review Board action. Commissioner Van De Mark made a motion to approve Planning Commission Reso- lution Number 136, approving Design Review Board action. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI. COMMENTS ,r,,,� A. Ci ty Staff Paul Williams discussed his notes from the seminar that he and Frank Urrutia had attended in Irvine on "Improving the Design Review Process. Mr. Williams also discussed the County's request for a proposed development on Country Club for an educational facility for the retarded. Commissioner Berked moved for approval of the above County request� Commissioner Van De Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unani- mously. -7- . • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 30, 1976 Mr. Williams also informed the Commission reference the rubbish transfer station to be located on the east side of Cook Street and stated this was information only that no action was needed. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van De Mark moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:57 P.M. '� (Motion unanimously carried) . �-�---�,� ,. �.�}��::�...��� �`��...�:.���.__�J PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: �-�,� f r /°�./ � �' , �/ /'� v. S! jR0 ILSON ' HAIRMAN �� . �..� ...� -8-