Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0914 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 7 PM - 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 7:02 pm in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall . II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner GEORGE BERKEY Commissioner GLORIA KELLY Commissioner NELSON MILLS Commissioner MARY K. VAN DE MARK Chairman S. ROY WILSON Others Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPOINTMENTS: A. Appointment of Chairman Commissioner Van de Mark nominated S. Roy Wilson for re-appointment as Chairman in view of the excellent job he has done. Commissioner Mills seconded the nomination. No further nominations were proposed. The following vote was cast: AYES: Berkey, Kelly, Mills, Van de Mark NOES: None ABSTAIN: Wilson B. Appointment of Vice-Chairman Commissioner Van de Mark nominated George Berkey for re-appointment as Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Kelly seconded the nomination. No further nominations were proposed. The following vote was cast: AYES: Kelly, Mills, Van de Mark, Wilson NOES: None ABSTAIN : Berkey Chairman Wilson thanked the members of the Commission for their vote of confidence. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the meeting of August 31, 1976. The following corrections were made to the above-listed minutes: 1. Page 2, paragraph 9, insert the following reason for Chairman Wilson 's agreement with Commissioner Van de Mark with regards to not approving Variance 03-76: Chairman Wilson felt that if the Variance was granted, this action would set a precedent which could apply to all Scenic Preservation Zones. 2. Page 5, last paragraph, 3rd line, add the word "had" after the word "he" and before the word "not". 3. Typographical error, page 6, last paragraph, change the word "is" to read "in". September 14, 1976 Page 1 4. Page 8, paragraph 4, omit the last sentence, "Motion unanimously carried. " and insert the following: The motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Berkey, Kelly, Mills, Van de Mark NOES: None ABSTAIN: Wilson 5. Page 9, insert the following sentence after the 5th paragraph: "Chairman Wilson advised Ms. Huntington that there would only be one-story buildings around the perimeter of the location. " 6. Page 10, Chairman Wilson requested that the second and third paragraphs be transposed. 7. Page 10, paragraph 6, omit the last sentence, "motion unanimously carried. " and insert the following: "The motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Berkey, Kelly, Mills, Van de Mark NOES: None ABSTAIN: Wilson A motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to ap- prove the minutes, as corrected, of the August 31, 1976 meeting was unanimously carried. VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Mrs. Fred Lande requesting for a determination of whether a Foster Home for 3 to 4 children would be allowed in the R-1 Zone District. Mr. Williams reviewed the above letter with the Commission. His report to the Commission also included a draft -letter to be sent to Mrs. Lande advising her of the Commission's findings. A short discussion ensued between the Commission and staff, which included ' a clarification of the definition of a "family" according to the Zoning Ordi- nance. The general consensus of the Commission seemed to be that a limit of 3 children would be allowable. A minute motion by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Van de Mark, to instruct Mr. Williams to send a revised letter to Mrs. Lande indicating the Commissioner's decision regarding the limitation of 3 children, was unanimously carried. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson explained the Public Hearing procedures to the members of the audience. A. CONTINUED CASE NO. TRACT 8237 - U. S. LIFE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION Consideration of a Tentative Map for a single-family residential subdivi- sion on 54.5 acres of land located east of Portola Avenue, south of the Whitewater River Storm Channel , and west of Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Williams began his presentation by stating that this case had been con- tinued from the August 31, 1976 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Williams presented a letter to the Commission from the Desert Sands Unified School District. Said letter contained the following requests regarding the new subdivision. "1. Request additional street or Pedestrian walkway be required. Pedestrian access between the two schools and many of the proposed residences , especially in the southeast portion of the tract, will be difficult and must be by excessively long and circuitous routes unless a street or pedestrian walkway is provided connecting Rutledge Avenue and Desert Star Blvd. at a location such as through Lots 17 and 34 or adjoining lots to the east. Our experience has been that children will seek "short cuts" in the absence of streets or walkways in such circumstances which could cause trouble for property owners along both Desert Star and Rutledge." September 14, 1976 Page 2 "2. Request that view obscuring wall be provided. It is requested that the developer provide a view obscuring wall on the west property line between the proposed tract and the school dis- trict property adjoining (west side of Lots 177 to 185) for the pur- pose of restricting access to and from the school property through private residential properties. The added benefit of increased privacy to home owners is significant. If a block wall cannot be provided, a chain link fence with decorative landscape screening is recommended as a minimum acceptable substitute." Mr. Williams stated that staff believed the School District's concerns had been adequately addressed with the revision of the tract map. Mr. Williams further explained that since the last Commission meeting of August 31st, the „ staff had met on several occasions with the applicant and his engineer. There were also meetings with the staff and the residents of the area. The result of those meetings is a revised Tentative Tract Map which resolves many of the concerns that the City Engineer, the Planning staff, and the citizens had with the subdivision. A lengthy discussion ensued covering the following issues: A list of items that have been resolved. Proposed community facilities dedication Improvement of Rutledge Way and Magnesia Falls Drive adjacent to the proposed Park site. Drainage Sidewalks Desert Star Boulevard Extension The benefits of the proposed subdivision were also discussed. They are as follows: „, Completion of circulation system in the area Provides the potential for reasonable priced housing Resolves an existing drainage problem Provides alternatives for safe and direct access to the Middle School and Community Park complex Increases an existing Park area Mr. Williams further explained that the Conditions of Approval were self- explanatory and conformed to the existing revised map. He stated that staff LL' recommended Planning Commission adoption of Resolution No. 178, forwarding wthe Tentative Tract Map to the City Council for consideration. Commissioner Kelly questioned the wording on Condition of Approval No. 6. UJ z ` Hunter Cook explained that the second sentence of Condition No. 6, which reads as follows, should be omitted due to the fact that it was a part of the original conditions: 0 6. Developer shall provide 5' wide P.C.C. sidewalks on both sides of w all interior streets, as required by the City Engineer. Sidewalk z may be omitted on Primrose Lane between Erin Street and the cul-de- UJ sacs. w There was a lengthy discussion concerning the access problems on Deep Canyon Road. Commissioner Berkey was extremely concerned about this situation. _z "IE Hunter Cook explained the right-of-way concept with reference to Deep Canyon Road. Commissioner Kelly wanted to know why a condition for street lights within the subdivision had been eliminated. September 14, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Williams explained that the City Council has not established a policy for street lights as yet. 0 Mr. Cook felt that a definite policy for street lights should be established. He stated that if a street light policy was established, there were two major cn intersections within the subdivision that should have signals. These inter- ] sections are Deep Canyon Road and Magnesia Falls Drive and "F" Street and Rutledge Way. Commissioner Van de Mark felt that a street light should be installed at the intersection of Rutledge Way and Portola Avenue. Mr. Cook agreed that that intersection should have a street light but it was not as much a part of the subdivision. Mr. Williams stated that the real issue with regards to street lights was not who was going to install them but rather the on-going costs of street lights and a determination of the level of street lights. Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. FRANK GOODMAN, 73-655 Shadow Mountain Drive, spoke to the Commission regarding the subdivision. Mr. Goodman stressed the fact that there had been a good number of hours spent in working with staff on the revision of the Tentative Tract Map. He stated that the layout of the streets had been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He further stated that cooperation was excellent from all staff members that were involved. He also stated that he had generally agreed with all the requests of the staff; but that there were one or two matters of principal that he would like to discuss. The first major problem was the problem of dedication of property for the Community Park. The second major problem was the requirement for the instal- lation of sidewalks. Mr. Goodman requested that the subdivider only be re- quired to install sidewalks on "F" and "A" Streets and Rutledge Way rather than the entire subdivision. Mr. Goodman again stated that he would accept all of the terms and conditions other than the park dedication condition and the sidewalk condition. DON SHAYLER, 73-893 Highway 111 (Engineer for the project) spoke to the Com- mission on the more technical aspects of the project. Mr. Shayler requested a re-write of Condition No. 12, which reads as follows: 12. The section of Desert Star Boulevard between the existing improve- ments and "F" Street shall be constructed as a pedestrian and bicycle way. The existing improvement shall be curbed as necessary to exclude through traffic at this time. The unimproved portion of the right-of- way shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hunter Cook felt that the condition as written was adequate and did not present any problems. Chairman Wilson stated at this time the Commission would take any input in favor of the proposed subdivision. DALE MEAD, 74-161 Desert Star Boulevard, spoke to the Commission with reference to the traffic problems on Desert Star Boulevard. He had no opposition to the subdivision, his only concern was that Desert Star Boulevard should not go through. ART BENDER, 74-020 Desert Star Boulevard, stated he was in favor of the revised map as presented and that it had been a pleasure working with the staff. VICTOR CLARK, 74-280 Erin Street, stated he was basically in favor of the revised map. Mr. Clark further stated he supported staff's condition re- garding dedication. He also stated that Deep Canyon Road should be considered as a prime entrance and exit route for the development. DIANE MEAD, 74-161 Desert Star Boulevard, spoke to the Commission with regards to the access problem on Desert Star Boulevard. Chairman Wilson explained to Mrs. Mead that the intent was to block off Desert Star at this time but keep the option open for future years. September 14, 1976 Page 4 RONDI SALTER, 74-010 Desert Star Boulevard spoke to the Commission in favor of the project. KENNETH ARNOLD, 74-360 Erin Street, spoke to the Commission in favor of the project. He also requested that the developer consider the drainage problem at the end of Florine Street. Being no further comments either in favor of or opposed to the project, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Wilson stated he was pleased with the amount of work that had been done with reference to the map revision and he was also pleased with the spirit of cooperation between the staff, the developer, and the citizens. Chairman Wilson then stated that there seemed to be two major issues for discussion at this time. The first issue dealing with the dedication of the lots west of Rutledge Way and the second issue dealing with sidewalks through- out the subdivision. Commissioner Berkey felt that the developer should dedicate the area west of Ruteldge Way for an extension of the existing park facilities and also that the developer should only be responsible for development of the east half of the street. On the sidewalk issue, Commissioner Berkey felt that even though there wasn't a firm policy relating to sidewalks, sidewalks should be installed throughout the subdivision. Commissioner Van de Mark agreed with Commissioner Berkey. Commissioner Kelly was in favor of sidewalks throughout the development. She also supported Commissioner Berkey's feeling that the developer should dedicate the area west of Rutledge Way for an extension of the existing park facilities and the concept of not requiring the developer to improve the west half of Rutledge Way adjacent to the park. At this point, Mr. Williams explained in detail the fact that the matter of the park dedication and whether Rutledge Way were to be improved full width were two separate issues. He indicated strongly that Rutledge Way full im- provement was essential for good circulation in the subdivision. Commissioner Berkey agreed that these were separate issues and it was the con- sensus of the Commission that the developer should fully improve Rutledge Way adjacent to the Park, except for sidewalks on the west side. Chairman Wilson stated that the Commission seemed to be in agreement on both issues, unless the City Council overrides the Commission. Chairman Wilson also stated that he was also in favor of the developer dedicating the area west of Rutledge Way and having a requirement for the installation of side- walks throughout the subdivision. There was a short discussion regarding the issue of widening Deep Canyon Road. All the Commissioners agreed that Deep Canyon Road was going to be a very important access point. 0 zChairman Wilson then asked for a consensus of opinion regarding the park u, dedication. w , Commissioner Kelly asked if there was any of getting the full 2.7 acres. _z Mr. Williams pointed out the alternatives on the map. .� Commissioner Berkey requested additional input from the developer. Chairman Wilson reopened the Public Hearing. Frank Goodman spoke to the Commission regarding the hardship that would be caused on the developer if the entire 2.7 acres were dedicated. The dedi- cation of the full 2.7 acres would require the replacement of an entire water main and laterals which he had participated in its construction on the premise that Rutledge Way would not be moved. Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing. September 14, 1976 Page 5 Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 178, with the property west of Rutledge Way being dedicated to the park and the remaining be accepted as lieu monies; the deletion of the second sentence under Condition No. 6, and the correction to Condition No. 13; also the wording changes recommended by staff regarding the second page of the resolution (changing Lots 177-185 to read: the area west of Rutledge Way (Avenue)). Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Chairman Wilson asked if there was any further discussion on the matter. Commissioner Kelly stated that she was not satisfied with the park dedication arrangement, in terms of not getting the full 2.7 acres and also the width of Deep Canyon Road, south of the subdivision. Chairman Wilson explained that Condition No. 4 spelled out the 20' access on Deep Canyon, south of the subdivision. Commissioner Kelly stated that she wanted the park to be the full 2.7 acres and she also wanted Deep Canyon Road to be developed to a full width of 32' , south of the subdivision. The motion was carried with the following vote: AYES: Berkey, Mills, Van de Mark, Wilson NOES: Kelly Chairman Wilson called a brief recess at 8:38 pm. The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 pm. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE COLLEGE OF THE DESERT AREA 1. Preliminary Circulation Plan for Various Blocks. Mr. Williams explained that this item was under the Old Business section of the agenda due to the fact that the history of the C.O.D. area had already been presented to the Commission. Further, at the next study session meeting, the Commission would receive a report from the staff containing comments from other agencies pertaining to the C.O.D. Specific Plan. Mr. Williams then discussed the General Project Area Concerns with the Commission. A Sub-Area Analysis was discussed which included 5 sub-areas as follows: The Palm Del Block (north of 44th, from Highway 111 to Monterey) The C.O.D. Block (north of 44th, from Monterey to Portola) The Deep Canyon Block (north of 44th, from Portola to Cook) The Palma Village #12 Block (south of 44th, from Monterey to San Pablo) The Palm Vista Block (south of 44th, from Monterey to Fairhaven) Slides of the major streets in the above areas were shown to the Com- mission. Mr. Williams stated that the most important predominant feature of the area would be the area of 44th Avenue and Monterey Avenue. Sam Freed explained that all the figures used pertaining to the average daily traffic volume were taken from 1973 Riverside County Traffic Rec- ords. Chairman Wilson was concerned with the gigantic area that was involved and the amount of time it would take to discuss this. September 14, 1976 Page 6 Mr. Williams stated that staff would present a report to the Commission at their meeting of October 5, 1976. Said report would include study zones, limitations, alternatives to the study area, etc. Chairman Wilson asked that the report be coordinated with the City Engineer. 2. Review of Demographic Data. Sam Freed explained to the Commission that staff felt that the Commission could use the above data as an informational tool to get a feeling for the type of people that live in the area. Even- tually, the information contained in the above report would be quite useful in the areas of housing, or parks, recreation, circu- lation and ultimately establishing priorities for public improve- ments. The report contained an area-by-area breakdown showing the number of people, number and types of housing units , number of vacant or seasonal units, the median age, average income, average housing value, average rent, percentage unemployed, percentage re- tired and the percentage of those individuals who are students ( 18 years of age or over) . IX. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FROM THE CVCWD THAT THE CITY OF PALM DESERT FIND THAT VARIOUS PROJECTS CONFORM TO THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN. Mr. Williams explained to the Commission that the CVCWD proposed the Q w installation of water systems in the following areas: w o Install 1,400 feet 12 inch pipeline in Desert Lily Drive between w Reservo 5644 and Grapevine. Install 400 feet 8 inch pipeline in Ironwood between Shadow Mountain U' Drive and Verba Santa Drive. D z Z Install 500 feet 8 inch pipeline between Ocotillo Drive and Verba Santa Drive. Install 900 feet 12 inch pipeline in E1 Paseo and Highway 111 to Panorama Drive and 350 feet 8 inch pipeline in Panorama Drive. Install 700 feet 12 inch pipeline in Deep Canyon from Abronia Trail to Highway 111 and in Highway 111 to Shadow Hills Road and 300 feet 8 inch pipeline in Shadow Hills Road south from Highway 111. Install 1,000 feet 6 inch pipeline in Parosella Street between Abronia Trail and Panorama Drive. Mr. Williams stated that staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 179, finding that the above proposed projects are in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Berkey moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 179. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion ; motion unanimously carried. B. DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE FROM THE STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH Mr. Williams stated that the above article had been presented to the Commission for informational purposes only. C. DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE FROM PRACTICAL PLANNING, "CHILDREN DESIGN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYGROUND". The Commission was asked to review this article for informational pur- poses only. September 14, 1976 Page 7 D. DISCUSSION OF REPORT ON VANDALISM Chairman Wilson requested that this discussion be continued to the next scheduled study session in order for the Commissioners to spend more time on the discussion. X. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of cases heard by the Design Review Board at their meeting of September 7, 1976. Mr. Fleshman presented the Design Review Board cases to the Commission. These cases included one case that had been held over from the last Commission meeting per the Commission's request - Case No. 41MF - Deep Canyon Tennis Club. The following cases were also discussed: 37C - Roy Carver 35C - Harold McCormick 26C - Sandy Sierra Nevada, Inc. 38C - Sandy Sierra Nevada, Inc. 47MF - Silver Spur Associates Mr. Fleshman stated that the Design Review Board had denied one case - Case No. 5C for the Tie Breaker Restaurant. The Commission discussed in detail Case No. 37C and several concerns were expressed. However, the Commission decided that no additional changes were necessary. Commissioner Mills moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 180, approving the Design Review Board actions of September 7, 1976. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Commissioner Kelly asked that the record show that she was opposed to the Design Review Board's action pertaining to Case No. 37C. The motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Berkey, Mills, Van de Mark, Wilson NOES: Kelly Commissioner Kelly asked that the reason for her NO vote be listed for the record. She stated that she did not feel that the building was com- patible to the design of the area and that it would be more compatible in a location such as the Palms-to-Pines Center. XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XII. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams presented an article from the American Society of Planning Officials regarding their Code of Ethics. Mr. Williams also presented the revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 170, pertaining to F. S. & L. Industries. Said resolution was revised to indicate the Commission's denial on Case No. Variance 03-76. Mr. Williams *NOW also stated that Mr. Kuri (President of F. S. & L. Industries) had appealed the Commission's decision and that the City Council would review the matter at their meeting of October 14, 1976. Mr. Williams further stated that the City Council had requested a review of Case No. CUP 08-76 (KMIR-TV) and that the hearing would be held at a special adjourned City Council meeting to be held on September 29, 1976. Mr. Williams also informed the Commission that there had been no decision as to a date for a joint City Council/Planning Commission study session. September 14, 1976 Page 8 B. City Attorney Not present C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Kelly requested that staff take a look at the Zoning Ordi- nance in the section pertaining to the definition of a "family" and come back to the Planning Commission with a possible re-wording of the defini- tion to allow a greater number of foster children within one residence. Commissioner Berkey requested a report from staff at the next Planning Commission meeting pertaining to the new building at the corner of E1 Paseo and Sage Lane. Commissioner Kelly asked that the City Council be made aware of the Commission's feelings pertaining to street lights within the new subdivi- sion (Case No. Tract 8237). XIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:51 pm. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: - �r Y WIL HAIRMA September 14, 1976 Page 9