Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0601 MI N UTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � JUNE l, 1976 7 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 7:00 p.m. , on June l, 1976, in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall . II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE �.. III . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, GLORIA KELLY, NELSON MILLS, 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 A. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of h1ay 18, 1976. Paul Williams suggested two changes to the above minutes. These changes are as follows: Page 2, under NEW BUSINESS, Paragraphs 5 and 6 should be reversed. Page 2, Paragraph 13, delete the word Firestone. Commissioner Berkey made a motion to approve the minutes of the �1ay 18, 1976 meeting, with the noted corrections. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. � V. WRITTEN COMP1UNICATIONS A. CASE N0. PM 7892, COUNTY REFERRAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Mr. Williams made a suggestion to move this item to the end of tonight's agenda in order to get started on the Public Hearings. Chairman Wilson agreed. VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE N0. C/Z 01-76, CATALINA GARDEN APARTMENTS, Applicant Request to re-zone approximately 3 acres located on the north side of Catalina Way between San Pascual and San Pablo from R-1-10,000 to R-3-3,000. Mr. L�illiams gave a background on the above request and stated that staff recommended denying the request based upon the following four justifications: 1. The proposed re-zoning does not conform to the overall character of the area. 2. The area is now mostly vacant and this re-zoning would set a � precedent for other vacant properties in the area. 3. The Planning Commission recently reviewed the area and determined that R-1 would be the most acceptable. 4. This property lies within the College of the Desert Specific Plan Area and further study of this area is forthcoming. -1- � MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 1976 VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE N0. C/Z 01-76 (continued) Mr. Williams also presented a letter to the Commission from the City of San Jacinto reference Nlr. Dana Horn , who is a partner in the Cata- 1 ina Garden Apartment Projec�t. � Being no questions of staff at this time, Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. MR. ENOS REID, Attorney, 3800 Orange Street, Riverside, Galifornia - Mr. Reid introduced MR. DANA HORN, a partner in the Catalina Garden Apartments. Mr. Reid also presented a brochure �to the Commission which contained recommendations from cities, credit references, and zoning platt. Mr. Reid stated that he wanted to convince the Com- mission that the applicant was sincere in wanting to bring a worth- while land use to Palm Desert. The main point that Mr. Reid attempted to bring ou� was that the area of concern was and has been unproductive for some time. Mr. Reid did not agree with any of the staff's four justifications for denial of the request. He s�tated that the Planning Commission had proven in the past that they were not afraid to set a precedent and that he could see no reason for them not to set a pre- cedent in reference to C/Z O1-76. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission in favor of the project. DICK KITE, 73-757 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Kite distributed a map of the area in question to the Commissioners . Mr. Kite further stated he was interested in this case because he had sold the property to Mr. Horn contingent on Mr. Horn 's getting re- �` zoning. Mr. Kite's map related to the surrounding area of the subject property and it pointed out that there are already 62 apartments , 4 single<family residences, and 1 church in the immediate surrounding area. Mr. Kite further stated that he felt the entire area was zoned improperly in the beginning. FRANCIS NAVICKUS, 11525 Shoshone, Granada Hills, California - Mr. Navickus spoke in favor of the project. He is also the owner of 12 acres on the west half of Lot 15. He has been the owner of said property for the past 19 years and stated he would keep the property vacant if the change of zone was not granted. EDWIN R. GUNT, 74-300 Aster, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Gunt has been part owner of the east half of Lot 13 for several years and stated he had made an initial investment and therefore wanted the re-zoning approved so that his investment would be worthwhile. Being no one present who wished to speak to the Commission against the project, Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any ques- tions of the applicant. Corrannissioner Mills asked Mr. Horn to describe what type of building would be built. � Mr. Horn stated that a single-story building was planned which would contain 625 square feet for each apartment. He further stated that in his past experience with this type of housing for the elderly, the apartments would most like7y be occupied by 80% elderly single women. -2- � MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 1976 VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE N0. C/Z 01-76 (continued) Commissioner Van de Mark wanted to know if the tenants would be paying rent or purchasing the units. ' Mr. Horn stated that the units would be rented out and that there would �""' be a 65 year age limit for the tenants. At this time, Mr. Williams stated that the issue at hand was a request for a change of zone, not what type of complex would be built, etc. Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on Case No. C/Z O1-76 and opened the ma�ter for discussion among the Commissioners. Chairman Wilson stated that the Commission had spent considerable time on this subject. He further explained that the College of the Desert Specific Plan was designed to find out specific answers to questions such as the ones brought up at tonight's meeting relative to the type of land use for the area. He further stated that the issue was not the desirability of the type of project, but whether or not to consider "spot zoning" change of land usage in this particular at this time. Commissioner Van de Nfark agreed with Chairman Wilson and stated she felt the matter should require further study. Commissioner Kelly asked Mr. Williams if the parcel adjacent to Lot 14 was occupied by a single dwelling. Mr. Williams answered yes, there was a single-family residence on said lot. ' Commissioner Berkey felt that some good points had been made and it "`�` would be in order to study the entire block from San Pablo to San Pascual on Catalina Way. Mr. Williams stated that the time element for the College of the Desert Specific Plan would be approximately 11 months and that this item re- ference re-zoning would be placed on a high prioritjr basis. Commissioner Mills and Commissioner Kelly agreed with Commissioner Berkey that the matter needed further study. At this time, Chairman Wilson stated that the general consensus of the Commission seemed to be that the request for re-zoning should be given high priority in terms of further study, that the request should be denied, and that staff be directed to undertake a priority study of the area in question. He further requested that the staff have the information available at the next planned study session for the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Williams at this time suggested denying the request without pre- j udi ce. Commissioner Berkey moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 150, as amended, to read R-3-3,000, with the addition of the wording "deny without prejudice". Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. � Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Berkey made a motion that the Commission initiate con- sideration of re-zoning of Lots 13, 14, and 15 to R-3-3,000, or such other zone as may appear appropriate; and further �that staff undertake a study possibly with the consideration of re-zoning of that particular area. Commissioner Mills seconded the mo�ion. Chairman Wilson opposed the motion as worded by Commissioner Berkey and voted against the motion. -3- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � JUNE 1, 1976 VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE N0. C/Z 01-76 (continued) Corr�nissioner Berkey indicated that the matter should not be set for a Public Hearing until staff is ready �o report on the entire study area. The motion was carried as follows : � AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, MILLS, VAN DE MARK NOES: WILSON Chairman Wilson at this time pointed out to the applicant that there was an appeal process and he explained said process to the applicant. B. CASE N0. CUP 03-73(AMENDMENT) , DESTINATION RESORT, App7icant Request to modify an existing CUP by reducing the number of condominium units, increasing the parking, and modifying the circulation and building positioning on the site. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report on the above request. Mr. Fleshman stated that the staff recommended approving the amend- ment to CUP 03-73 and based the recommendation upon the following: 1. The location of the project is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The location of the proposed use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be de- �"' trimental to the public health , safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed use will comply with each of the applicable pro- visions of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed use complies with the goals, objectives , and policies of the City's General Plan. Mr. Fleshman further stated that staff had reviewed this request and had worked with the applicant at great length reference the proposed amendment. He also stated that along with the Standard Conditions of Approval , several special conditions had been added. These con- ditions are attached to the resolution. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Fleshman if the two-story structures would pose a problem reference their proposed location. Mr. Fleshman said that with the wall and proper landscaping, the two- story structures would not pose a serious problem; however, the ap- plicant could re-arrange the tennis courts and the buildings , to mitigate any potential problems. Mr. Fleshman further stated that staff felt any problems could be mitigated through the Design Review � Board Process. Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. DOUG HINCHLIFFE, 131 Yacht Harbor Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California - Mr. Hinchliffe spoke to the Commission representing Destination Resort Corporation. He stated that this had been a controversial project all along but he felt that they had overcome the objections of the bulk of the residents in the area. Mr. Hinchliffe also s�ated that the proposed plans were a result of working with Mr. Flood, architect for the project. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Hinchliffe if he agreed to all the Conditions of Approval . Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he was in complete agreement with all the Conditions. -4- MINUTES � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 1976 VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CASE N0. CUP 03-73 (AMENDMENT) (continued) Being no one present who wished to speak in favor of the project, Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission against the project. "�"" GORDON JENSEN, 73-911 Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Jensen objected to the new line of parking to the rear of his residence. PHILLIP JEFFERSON, 73-822 Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Jefferson objected to the glare from the lights on the tennis courts and felt that if additional tennis courts were planned, the problem would only become more serious. Mr. Jefferson is the owner of Lots 33, 35, 38 and 39, which are adjacent to the proposed pro- ject. Mr. Jefferson also objected to the addition of two-story buildings as being too close to R-1 zoning. Chairman Wilson asked staff if the lighting that was proposed for the new tennis courts would be the same type of lighting that was presently being used. Mr. Fleshman stated that according to Condition No. 9, the existing tennis court lights would have to be modified in a manner acceptable to the Design Review Process. Mr. Jefferson asked where he could view a sample of the proposed type of lighting. Mr. Williams stated that this type of lighting could be viewed at `""' the corner of Buckboard Trail and Portola Avenue and also at the Deep Canyon Tennis Club. HELEN HUNTINGTON, 73-820 Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert, California - Ms. Huntington agreed with Mr. Jefferson's objection to the lighting problem. She suggested that there should be a set time for the lights to be turned off at night. She also objected strenuously to the two- story buildings which are proposed. Chairman Wilson asked if there could be some sort of curfew set re- ference the lighting. Mr. Williams stated that an additional condition could be added to the Conditions of Approval for the project. He further stated that this would possibly have to be handled as an Ordinance at the City Council level . MARY JANE BEAM, 73-901 Shadow Lake Drive, Pa7m Desert, Ca1ifornia - Ms. Beam also agreed with Mr. Jefferson. She further objected to the grading which has been raised on Club Circle as a result of the left-over dirt from the new parking lot. Chairman Wilson asked staff if they had any comments reference the road grading problem. � Mr. Williams stated that this was the first time he had heard of the problem and that staff was unaware of said problem. Chairman Wilson asked staff for further study on the grading issue. -5- MINUTES � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 1976 VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CASE N0. CUP 03-73(AMENDMENT) (continued) LARRY WOOD, 45-790 Mountain View Avenue, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Wood also supported Mr. Jefferson 's objections reference the present lighting system on the tennis courts. ' At this time, Mr. Hinchliffe gave a brief rebuttal and stated that � the lights were supposed to be turned out each night at 10:00 p.m. He stated further that he was sympathetic to the concern of the residents in the neighborhood. He also stated that possibly some type of time switch could be installed to eliminate the problem. Reference the up grade of the road, Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the problem would be investigated and that a solution would be forth- coming. Relative to the two-story buildings, he stated he would work with the Commission and the staff on this problem. Commissioner Van de Mark asked if the two-story buildings would be a townhouse type unit. Mr. Flood, architect for the project, stated that the buildings would be a combination of flats and �townhouses. Being no further comments, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on CUP 03-73(Amendment) and opened the matter for discussion among the Commissioners. Chairman Wilson stated that the main concerns seemed to be as follows: 1. Objection to two-story struct�res � 2. Lighting problems on the tennis courts 3. Parking lot too close to residential area 4. Grading of road Commissioner Berkey stated that he felt that the developer was extremely co-operative and that the above listed problems could be resolved. Comissioner Kelly also commended the developer for his willingness to co-operate. She further requested that a condition be added to cover the addition of low profile lighting of the parking areas for safety purposes. Commissioner Mills asked what procedure would be followed for finding a solution to the above problems as listed by Chairman Wilson. Chairman Wilson explained the Design Review Board Process to Commissioner Mills. Chairman Wilson also felt that a timer switch for the tennis court lights should be listed as a part of the Conditions of Approval . Commissioner Van de Mark agreed. Commissioner Mills also agreed that this should be added to the Conditions of Approval . Mr. Williams then read an additional four Conditions of Approval which staff felt should be added to the 13 conditions already listed. These � conditions are as follows: 14. The grading along the north and east property line shall match the grades of the adjacent R-1 lots along Shadow Lake Drive. 15. All existing and proposed tennis court lighting shall be placed on automatic timers. 16. The two most northerly buildings shall be re-designed to pro- vide for a single-story limitation. 17. Parking areas shall be lighted in a manner acceptable to the Design Review Board Process. -6- MINUTES � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � JUNE l, 1976 VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS B . CASE N0. CUP Q3-73(Amendment) (continued) Mr. Williams also stated that the word "decorative" should be added to Condition No. 7, prior to the word masonr . Also, Condi�ion No. 1 should be changed to read (Exhibit A) as opposed to (Exhibit(s) A-D) . Another change was to add t e�word Process to the end of Condition No. 9. � Commissioner Van de Mark made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 151, with the three noted corrections to the conditions and the addition of four conditions. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Wilson called a brief recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was re-convened at 8:50 p.m. C. REVIEW OF THE EIR FOR THE NEW PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Paul Williams reviewed the request that the Planning Corr�nission certify the final Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Sign Ordinance for the City, (Article 25.38 of the Municipal Code) , as complete and recom- mend said approval to the City Council . Mr. Williams further explained that the Environmental Impact Report had been circulated to some 43 agencies, groups , and individuals in order to obtain their review and comments. Mr. Williams also explained that the final EIR on the Sign Ordinance consisted of the draft EIR, the comments on the report received by the City, the City's response to these comments, and the comments received at the Public Hearing. To this date, only three responses were re- � ceived and these comments that were received were general in nature. Mr. Williams completed his presentation with the statement that staff felt the EIR was complete, with some minor adjustments, and staff re- commended forwarding the EIR to the City Council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 152. Mr. Williams did note one correction to be made to the EIR. On Page 12, the second to the last line, 10 years should be changed to read 25 years. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of staff. Commissioner Berkey commented that the EIR was a job well done. Being no one present who wished to speak to the Commission either in favor of or opposed to �he above EIR, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing and opened the matter for discussion. The general consensus of the Commissioners was that the EIR was a very thorough document. Chairman Wilson was concerned that no one was present, in the audience, to discuss this document; but possibly it was due to the fact that there had been so many reviews on the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Kelly stated that it was too bad that we didn't have more public input. � Commissioner Berkey felt that the lack of public input at tonight' s meeting could possible be due to the fact that the proper procedures were followed and that no one had any objections. Commissioner Mills made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 152, recommending to the City Council that they certify as complete the final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion . Motion ca rried unani- mously. -7- MINUTES ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 1976 � VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) D. PUBLIC HEARING ON SECTIQN 25.38 OF THE PALM DESERT ZONING ORDINANCE, KNOWN AS THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Mr. Williams reviewed the request that the Planning Commission amend Article 25.38 of the Zoning Ordinance and adopt a new Sign Ordinance for the City of Palm Desert. He brought out the fact that this docu- ment was originally started in January of 1975. The preliminary draft � was changed a number of times as additional data became available. Mr. Williams further stated that comments had been received pertaining to the Sign Ordinance. These written comments were from William G. Rave/Rave Designs, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, and Riverside County Department of Fire Protection. Mr. Williams justified staff's recomrnendation to approve Planning Com- mission Resolution No. 153 based upon the following justifications: l. The project does conform to the adopted General Plan and the goals, objectives , and policies established therein. 2. The project is designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Mr. Williams further stated that the Sign Ordinance had a number of changes which were needed, but that these changes consisted mainly of re-numbering of sections of the Ordinance. At this time, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing as there was no one present who wished to speak to the Corrunission either in favor of or opposed to the Sign Ordinance. �""' Being no questions of staff, Commissioner Berkey made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 153, recommending to the City Council adoption of the new Sign Ordinance for the City of Palm Desert, (Article 25.38 of the Municipal Code) . Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Kelly commented to Mr. Williams that she thought a letter of appreciation should be sent to those persons or agencies who had taken the time to express their comments. She also felt that a letter of appreciation should be sent to the members of the Ad Hoc Sign Ordinance Committee. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Kelly's suggestion. VII . OLD BUSINESS - PJone VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FROM CUCWD TO MAKE A FINDING THAT SEVERAL PROPOSED PROJECTS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PALM D SERT GENERAL PLAN. Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed construction of the following projects by the CVCWD. l. North Portola Regional Sewer between Alessandro Drive and Avenue 44 consisting of an 8 inch regional collection sewer extending about � 2,500 feet to serve the area and future needs. 2. South Portola Sewer between E1 Paseo and Fairway Drive consisting of about 1,850 feet of 8 inch sewer line to provide wastewater collection in the area served. 3. Deep Canyon Regional Sewer consisting of about 2,450 feet of 8 inch sewer pipe between Alessandro Drive and Avenue 44 to provide regional trunk sewer to serve the area. 4. Monterey Regional Sewer between Highway 111 and Avenue 44 consisting of about 2,600 feet of 8 inch sewer pipe to provide wastewater col - lection in the area. -8- � MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 1976 VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. CUCWD REQUEST (continued) Mr. Williams brought Finding No. 3 to the Commission's attention which stated that the water district would be responsible for damages to the recently completed road improvements. � Commissioner Van de Mark made a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 154, finding that the above listed projects proposed to be constructed by the CVCWD are in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. REVIEW OF ACTIONS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF MAY 25, 1976 Steve Fleshman presented the four cases which had been approved by the above listed DRB action. He also reviewed the two cases which had been rejected and the one case which had been deferred. Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 155, as amended to show the change in conditions and the resolution for Case No. 21MF/SHADOW MOUNTAIN RESORT CLUB. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None At this time, the Commission went back to the discussion of Case No. PM 7892-County Referral of Tentative Parcel Map. This discussion had �► been deferred so that the Commission could hold the Public Hearing items fi rst. Steve Fleshman explained the County Referral and stated that staff had reviewed this parcel map request and found several serious problems. These problems are as follows: 1. No contours are shown on the Map and this area does have a substantial change of elevation. 2. No indication is made as to which roads will be improved and to what extent. 3. The existing structure is not located on the map. 4. Parcels of 60,000 square feet with their own private sewage systems should not be considered without an analysis of slope and soils. A short discussion ensued, after which Commissioner Berkey made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 156, announcing findings and expressing concern over the County approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892, on property generally located in the Cahuilla Hills Area. Com- missioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. XI . COMMENTS � A. City Staff Mr. Williams informed the Commission that at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, 1976, there would be a meeting of all property owners in the two block area between E1 Paseo and Highway 111 relative to undergrounding. B. City Attorney - Not present -9- ' MINUTES ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE l, 1976 XI . COMMENTS (continued) C. Planning Commissioners It was the general consensus of all the Commissioners that an extra study session should be held to discuss City Council philosophy; to help familiarize the two new Planning Commissioners with Planning Commission procedures, past cases, etc. ; and also for staff to ex- �' plore the possibility of a joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session. The Commissioners felt that this extra study session should be set for as soon as possible. Chairman Wilson also requested that a vicinity map be placed in each Planning Commissioners' packet prior to each Planning Commission Meeting. XII . ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Com- missioner Berkey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. �_ `� � �� �,,�, . � � ;.� �� �, � \��'�.i�._ - > ���_`..,; �c_....�--____. P L A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: � d � v�� 9 ROY W 0 , CHAIRMA � -10-