Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0727 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (CONTINUED FROM JULY 13, 1976) JULY 27, 1976 7 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The continued meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Berkey at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall . two II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, GLORIA KELLY, and MARY K. VAN DE MARK Absent: Commissioner NELSON MILLS (Excused absence) Chairman S. ROY WILSON (Excused absence) Others Present: Stephen A. Fleshman - Acting Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 13, 1976 Steve Fleshman brought three minor corrections to the Commission 's attention. They are as follows: Page 1, last paragraph , second sentence - Change the word were to was. Page 2, fourth paragraph - Add the words and be more specific instead of general to the end of the last sentence in the paragraph. Page 2, second paragraph under comments by Planning Commissioners. Add the following sentence: Commissioner Kelly further inquired as to the possibility of news releases and the involvement of ci- tizens that live in the area pertaining to the planning process. Commissioner Kelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 13, 1976 meeting with the above-noted corrections. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Al Kuri regarding Two-Story Construction in the S. P. Overlay Zone. A copy of the above-mentioned letter was included in the Commissioners ' packets. The object of the letter was to ask the Commission 's approval to allow F. S. & L. INDUSTRIES, INC. , to complete Lots 16 and 17, Sha- dow Mountain Golf Club Estates , Unit No. 1, which is the remaining 25% of their project. Steve Fleshman explained that Mr. Kuri would have to request a Variance *00 to enable development of the project as a two-story structure. He fur- ther explained that if Mr. Kuri submitted his application for said Vari- ance by Monday, August 2, 1976, that the Public Hearing for the Variance would be held before the Planning Commission on August 31, 1976. -1- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (continued) B. Referral from Indian Wells on a 40-Acre Condominium Project. Mr. Fleshman explained that the above was a request for comment from the City of Indian Wells regarding a condominium project at the north- east corner of Fairway Drive and Cook Street. He further explained that staff, in review of the project, had come up with the following ••■ comments: 1. A possible line-of-sight problem on Fairway at the corner of Cook Street should be treated as carefully as possible and studied by the City Engineer of either City. 2. The tennis courts, which may be lighted, should be lighted with a subdued form of lighting, lighting only the tennis court and not the surrounding areas. 3. The location of trash storage areas as noted on the plan would be blocked by motor vehicles using the parking spaces. This portion should be restudied and suggestions given by the trash disposal company. 4. This development is in an existing date grove which has been an important historical factor to the entire Coachella Valley. The date grove character of this development should be preserved wherever feasible. This would include the relocation of some of the existing date trees to the outside perimeter of the pro- ject. 5. Emergency access noted on the plan, located off Cook Street, should not be made of chain link fencing materials which would present a detrimental appearance to the homes and developments on the west side of Cook Street. At this time, Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if a minute motion would be in order. Mr. Fleshman answered that a minute motion would not be necessary. How- ever, if the Commission concurred with the five comments as listed above, staff would send a letter to the City of Indian Wells which would include said comments. The Commission concurred with staff's comments. C. Letter from Mr. Terry Heuer regarding drive-thru restaurant facilities. The above letter was referred by the City Council to the Planning Com- mission for their comments. Mr. Fleshman stated the staff's recommendation, based on the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, was that drive-thru restaurant facilities would not be allowed. Commissioner Kelly made a motion that a letter be sent to Mr. Heuer re- garding the drive-thru restaurant facilities specifying they would not ... be allowed in the present zone and also the S.P. Overlay Zone. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Van de Mark. Motion carried unanimously -2- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (continued) D. Letter of Appeal from Robert H. Ricciardi regarding the Design Review Board decision on a commercial building. Mr. Fleshman asked the Commission to defer this item until later on in the meeting due to the fact Mr. Ricciardi 'a representative was not yet present. The Commission agreed to defer this item. VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice-Chairman Berkey requested that it be noted for the record that the Commission had had a study session prior to the meeting in order for staff to answer questions from the Commissioners relating to items on the Agenda. He further stated that no decisions had been made at the study session. A. TT 5796 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES - APPLICANT Request for approval of a Tentative Tract for 130 units on 36 acres , located east of Mariposa Drive between Portola Avenue and Irontree, within the Ironwood Country Club. Steve Fleshman reviewed the staff report regarding the above request. This review included staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the above request, subject to some 23 conditions of approval . Justification for the above recommenda- tion was based upon the following: 1. The project does conform to existing and proposed development ... in the area. 2. The project does conform to the Palm Desert Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, as amended. 3. The project does ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. The map generally conforms to the approved Conditional Use Permit for the project. Mr. Fleshman further stated that staff had reviewed the conditions of ap- proval with the applicant and that they were in agreement on most of the conditions. There being no one present who wished to speak to the Commission either in favor of or opposed to the project, Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant was present. DON SHAYLER, PACIFIC RIM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LTD. , 73-893 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Shayler spoke to the Commission on be- half of the applicant. He stated that he had met with Mr. Fleshman as indicated regarding the conditions of approval and that they were not in complete agreement on some of the conditions. The first condition that the applicant objected to was Condition No. 3. Mr. Shayler asked that Now Condition No. 3 be deleted for the following reasons: 1. very little pedestrian traffic in the area. 2. area isolated from the center of town 3. parkway already improved with landscaping, security walls, etc. 4. landscaping would be destroyed if a sidewalk was to be installed 5. possible undermining of the existing security system At this time, Commissioner Kelly asked for comments from City Engineer Hunter Cook. -3- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TT 5796 (continued) City Engineer Cook stated that his principal concern was separating the pedestrian from the automobile. There were a lot of pedestrians in the area and the deletion of sidewalks could present a safety prob- lem. With regards to the existing improvements - Mr. Cook stated they would not be damaged that much if a pedestrian way was installed. Mr. Cook further stated that security was not a feasible consideration since Portola was a public street. A lengthy discussion ensued between the Commission, staff, and Mr. Shayler reference future pedestrian ways in the area, the possibility of the developer agreeing to install the pedestrian ways at a later date, the cost of installation of a pedestrian way, and the use of bike lanes in the area. The next condition which the applicant objected to was Condition No. 4. After a short discussion, it was decided to delete the second sentence from Condition No. 4. Mr. Shayler next asked staff for an explanation of Condition No. 21. Hunter Cook suggested a change in the wording for Condition No. 21 as follows: 21. The subdivider shall enter into a future improvement agree- ment to participate in the signalization of the Mariposa Drive and Portola Avenue "T" intersection on the basis of up to one- third participation in the cost of the installation of the sig- nal at such time as traffic signal warrants are met. `ow Mr. Cook also requested that an addition be made to Condition No. 23 to read as follows: 23. Area shall be annexed to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley County Water District, is so directed by the City Council . Mr. Fleshman suggested that modifications be made to Conditions No. 17 and No. 19 to read as follows : 17. All dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, or any other appropriate agency, without cost to the City and free of all liens and encumbrances. 19. A homeowners association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The homeowners association shall have the right to lien the units of the owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the homeowners association. love At this time, Vice-Chairman Berkey closed the Public Hearing on TT 5796, as there were no further comments, and asked the Commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Kelly stated she was deeply concerned with the present and future drainage problems in the area and asked if it was necessary for the drainage water to flow onto Portola Avenue before reaching the Deep Canyon Storm Channel . -4- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TT 5796 (continued) A discussion ensued and Vice-Chairman Berkey re-opened the Public Hearing as Mr. Shayler had some additional comments reference the drainage problem. Mr. Shayler's comments pertained to the on-going maintenance problems and alternatives to the drainage system as pro- posed. He indicated that Ironwood would agree to be responsible for •• maintenance caused by their run-off. Vice-Chairman Berkey closed the Public Hearing and asked the Com- missioners for their comments on Condition No. 3. Commissioner Van de Mark stated she would be in favor of deferring the requirement for installation of a pedestrian way until such time that it was necessary. Commissioner Kelly agreed with Commissioner Van de Mark and asked staff for their help in rewording Condition No. 3. Vice-Chairman Berkey also agreed and Hunter Cook suggested the following rewording of Condition No. 3: 3. Developer shall enter into a future improvement agreement with the City to install a P.C.C. pedestrian way along the southerly side of Portola from Mariposa Drive to Buckboard Trail , at such time as the City deems necessary. Alignment shall be subject to approval of the City. Commissioner Van De Mark made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 163, with the corrections as noted pertaining to Con- ditions No. 3, 4, 17, 19, 21, and 23. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. CASE NO. 40MF - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES - APPLICANT Review of site plan , elevations, grading, landscaping, and floor plans for 130 new units at the Ironwood Country Club. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report reference the above case. Mr. Fleshman explained that this project already had a Conditional Use Permit and the Tract Map was just recommended for approval to the City Council . He further explained that since no Development Plan was required, the staff was processing the items submitted to the Design Review Board Process as a separate matter. Mr. Fleshman also stated that the Design Review Board had approved the above re- quest as submitted, subject to 11 conditions of approval . Mr. Flesh- man further recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 164, subject to the 11 conditions of ap- proval and based his recommendation on the following justifications: 1. The project conforms to the Palm Desert General Plan. Now 2. The project meets the requirements of Section 25.14 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance 3. The project conforms to the adopted Conditional Use Permit for the development There being no questions of staff at this time, Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant was present to address the Commission. -5- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. CASE NO. 40MF (continued) JOHN BALLEW, Morris-Lohrbach & Associates, 17848 Sky Park Boulevard, Irvine, California 92664 - Mr. Ballew stated he was the architect for the applicant and on behalf of his client, he stated they were in com- plete agreement with the 11 conditions of approval . %MW Commissioner Kelly moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 164, subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of cases heard at the meeting of July 20, 1976. Mr. Fleshman requested that the Commission review Mr. Ricciardi 's letter of appeal at this time since it pertained to Item No. 6 on the Design Review Board agenda (Case No. 32C-L.H.GILLIGAN) . Mr. Felshman stated the Commission had three options reference the letter of appeal . There were as follows : 1. The Commission could uphold the findings of the Design Review Board and ask the architect to come up with another design. 2. The Commission could agree with Mr. Ricciardi and overturn the decision of the Design Review Board. 3. The Commission could request the applicant to do some further study of the design and then bring it back to the Commission. Vice-Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant was present. ALFRED COOK, a representative of Mr. Ricciardi who is the architect for the project, 73-700 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Cook explained to the Commission that if the matter were again deferred, this would cause a hardship on his client. A short discussion ensued between the Commission and staff reference the parking and design problems of the project. Commissioner Van de Mark made a motion to send the case back to the Design Review Board to iron out differences and return it at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • At this time, Mr. Fleshman reviewed the Design Review Board cases which had been approved at their meeting of July 20, 1976. There was a brief discussion reference the absence of members at the Design Review Board meetings and staff acting as alternate members. It was the general consensus of the Commission to continue the discussion of this problem to their next study session. Commissioner Kelly had attended the Design Review Board meeting of the 20th and she commented on Case No. 39MF and stated it was her personal ... opinion that the case should not have been approved without color scheme samples being presented. She also expressed concern about the high main- tenance costs that could result and requested specific Design Review Board consideration of the matter. Mr. Fleshman stated that the Commission had the power to reject the findings of the Design Review Board reference Case No. 39MF. -6- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (continued) Commissioner Kelly made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Re- solution No. 165, announcing findings and approving actions of the July 20, 1976 meeting of the Design Review Board, with the deletion of Case No. 39MF, which should be sent back to the Design Review Board for further review. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. low X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI . COMMENTS A. City Staff City Engineer Hunter Cook commented that this was his first time before the Planning Commission and if the Commission so desired, he would plan to attend the meetings on a regular basis in order to give factual information pertaining to Planning Commission cases. Mr. Cook further stated that Mr. Shayler's cost figure as pertaining to the pedestrian way was approximately $75,000 higher than what was actually involved. The Commission agreed that it would be very helpful if Mr. Cook was present at all Planning Commission meetings. B. City Attorney - Not present C. Planning Commissioners Vice-Chairman Berkey felt that some type of policy should be developed pertaining to sidewalks. low XII . ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van de Mark made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Com- missioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETRAY ATTEST: VICE-CHATRMAN GEORGE B RKEY -7-