Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0705 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 5, 1977 7:00 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 Berkey at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall . II. PLEDGE - Commissioner READING r III . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner KELLY Commissioner KRYDER Commissioner READING Commissioner SNYDER Chairman BERKEY Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Bud Engel - City Fire Marshal Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 1977 Mr. Williams requested that the following changes be made: too Page 4, 4th paragraph from the bottom should read as follows: "Commissioner Kelly asked whether the wrought iron fence could pose an access problem if it were installed prior to construction? Staff indicates it might pose access problems. " Page 6, last paragraph add "and narrow width" after the word access. Page 9, last paragraph after concise, add the following: "by comparison with the report by CVAG. " Page 9, last paragraph add the following to last sentence: "with regards to the wordiness and intent of the CVAG document. " Page 10, next to the last paragraph change "next year" to read "month". A motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Reading, to approve the minutes of the June 14, 1977 meeting, with the above mentioned changes , was unanimously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams noted that the only written communications were those dealing with the cases on tonight' s agenda and would be discussed at the appropriate times. VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommenda- tions. No decisions were reached. Chairman Berkey then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NO. CUP 08-77, HOWARD B. LAWSON, APPLICANT Request for approval of a Development Plan to allow construc- tion of a Commercial Shopping Center consisting of approximately 160,000 square feet of rental space on approximately 15 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of E1 Paseo and Highway 111 . w Mr. Williams reviewed this case pointing out that it was a request for a Development Plan in a Planned Commercial Regional Center Zone involving over 160,000 square feet of rental space on a 15 acre parcel located near El Paseo and Highway 111 . This is the final phase of Palms to Pines Plaza extending from Highway 74 to El Paseo West. The request is for 165,942 square feet of rental space with 870 proposed parking spaces, which is 4.5% short of the 913 required. A pedestrian walkway joins this Phase and Phase III. Access from Highway 111 is a one-way in one-way out street. The architecture conforms to the previous phases. A setback from Highway 111 in excess of 40 feet is required, which will be landscaped and bermed to shield the parking lot in front of the building. The applicant has complied with all the requirements of the Fire Marshal and the project will be accessible from all sides for fire equipment. Staff feels that service access is lacking. Three loading spaces are required, none have been proposed, this condition must be met. Staff recommends that this case be approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 254 subject to the conditions of approval . Mr. Williams closed his pre- sentation by reviewing the conditions which include undergrounding utilities, curb, gutter and sidewalks, correcting line of sight problems. The Design Review Board process will handle these problems. The Design Review Board process will review the 4.5% shortage in parking and advise staff if this re- duction is justified, if not then the full 913 parking spaces could be required. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners at this time. There were none. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open on Case No. CUP 08-77 and asked if the applicant was present. ROBERT A. RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111 , Palm Desert (representing Howard B. Lawson Co. ) spoke to the Commission and addressed himself to various conditions stating that the first application met the required parking spaces. The staff has recommended more landscaping therefore creating the loss in parking spaces. The applicant asked that some of the conditions be reviewed and possibly be deleted. Condition 18 requires an additional planter by the theatre sign. If this is complied with, 4 or 5 parking spaces would be lot. The applicant feels he is being penalized while he is enhancing the adjoining property. Condition 20 also will do away with parking spaces to allow for more landscaping. Condition 21 requires a 40' planter and Mr. Carver to the east only has 10' . Staff is requiring twice that of Mr. Carver, therefore eliminating more spaces. The applicant knows of the possible 1.0% reduction which can be granted by staff, but he feels some allowances could be made without this. Only one restaurant is definite at the present time for the project and will be located in the free standing building in the project. Mr. Ricciardi then spoke about the trash problem and told the commission that the trash will be housed within the buildings, not outside, this problem will be discussed with the staff. Mr. Ricciardi asked if Mr. Williams would explain Condition 25 a little more fully, regarding the bike path running through the project. Mr. Williams stated that staff is suggesting that a portion of the pedestrian walkway be designated as a bike path to carry the theme that exists on Plaza Way in Phase III, with internal circulation, joining pathways, and bike racks. Mr. Ricciardi pointed out his concern for mixing bicycles and pedestrians in an older community, which might bring about accidents when the two are combined. Further, the proposed plan would keep the bicycles on the street and the pedestrians on the walkways. Mr. Ricciardi then pointed out that the large parking space planned near the theatre would take the overflow park- ing from the theatre in the evenings and also serve the proposed shops. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NO. CUP 08-77 (Continued) Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any questions at this time. There were none. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone present who would like to speak in FAVOR of the project. BEing no one, he then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. EDWARD BENSON, 1106 Sandpiper, Palm Desert, asked if the public could see copies of the 31 conditions proposed for this proposed project. Mr. Benson was given a gopy of the conditions. Mr. Benson then questioned Mr. Williams about the proposed three driveways and how they would line up with the present driveways in the Sandpiper complex off E1 Paseo. Mr. Williams pointed out the driveways on the map indicating their positions. Mr. Benson stated his concern for the whole development and how it would enhance the City of Palm Desert and affect the Sandpiper complex. Mr. Benson then asked if underground parking has been proposed. Mr. Williams stated it had not, but it could be considered. Mr. Benson then wondered if the complex would all be rented at once or would the project be completed in stages. The impact of this on the com- mercial area of the City was questioned. Mr. Williams stated that it was zoned for the use proposed. Chairman Berkey advised Mr. Benson that this type of discussion should be termi- nated at this point. Mr. Benson stated that he was impressed with the project but hoped that more time should be given to the project. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in OPPOSITION or comment on the project. Being no one, he asked the applicant if he cared to make a brief rebuttal . Mr. Ricciardi stated in response to Mr. Benson 's question that the project would be 90% rented upon completion, also adding that this area will be the heart of the valley soon. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions by the Commissioners at this time. Another citizen wished to speak at this time. HERBERT HUNT, 45-975 Highway 74, Palm 'Desert, spoke to the Commission about the quality of the applicants previous projects. Mr. Hunt spoke of the care that was taken in planning this project to make .it feasible to the sur- rounding and adjoining property or developments. Chairman Berkey closed the Public Hearing on Case No. CUP 08-77 and asked Mr. Williams to speak on the conditions mentioned by Mr. Ricciardi . Mr. Williams spoke on Condition No. 18 pointing out that this is another Phase .r of the Palms to Pines Plaza and the large planter is a major design element of the project. Condition No. 20 points out that the building you see as you enter Palm Desert is the one right at E1 Paseo and moving this building would not create a hardship as the parking spaces could also be relocated. Condition No. 21 shows that the original plans for the area required a setback which is gradually widened to 40 feet on the west. This is the area you see as you enter the project and the larger the planter the better it would appear as you enter the City through its major entrance. Condition No. 25 addresses itself to the bike path that runs through Phase III and where it is picked up in this phase and located with the bike rack. The trash problem is one of the weaknesses of this design in that the servicing of the trash is the problem. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 . Page Four VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NO. CUP 08-77 (Continued) Chairman Berkey asked if this would not be handled in the Design Review process. Mr. Williams stated yes it would be. Further, in regard to Mr. Benson's ques- tion about underground parking, this has been analyzed but usually the cost makes the applicant decrease the size of the buildings instead of pursuing underground parking. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Kryder asked Mr. Williams if in regard to Condition No. 25, if there would be any conflict with pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Williams pointed out that if the bike ways and pedestrian paths are de- signated as in the other phases there should be no problem even though we all know that bikes are ridden everywhere. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Commissioners at this time. Commissioner Kelly pointed out that the 43 parking space deficiency would only increase the problem that the Plaza already has and wondered if there was any- way this problem could be resolvd. Commissioner Kelly noted the various con- ditions and the parking losses in each and again stressed the point that park- ing is a problem in the area already. Chairman Berkey asked if Commissioner Kelly felt this case should be sent back to the drawing board? Commissioner Kelly again stressed her concern for the shortage of parking and pointed out that the Design Review Board process could consider the parking needed for the project and determine what could possibly be needed, but still there is no guarantee it would be enough. Chairman Berkey asked if by the time the case goes through the Design Review Board process with Condition No. 30 the building sizes might have been reduced? Mr. Williams stated yes. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any other comments or a motion. Mr. Williams pointed out that the 10% reduction in parking.is. not automatic and that there has to be some logic for the reduction and this was the reason- ing for the condition. Further, he pointed out that the building could be reduced by 8,000 square feet and meet the parking requirement, also this could be possible if another restaurant was proposed. Chairman Berkey pointed out that Condition No. 30 would give the protection the Commission is looking for in providing adequate parking. Mr. Williams confirmed this as so. Commissioner Kelly asked if this should be more definetly pointed out in the condition that no parking deficiency be allowed. ` Mr. Williams noted that the condition should read "Design Review process" which means the Commission will evaluate the appropriateness of the reduction. Chairman Berkey pointed out that it would be coming before the Commission again. Mr. Williams noted that this was the intent. Chairman Berkey asked for a motion at this time. Commissioner Kryder moved ._ that the Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 254 with the con- ditions as stated, Commissioner Snyder seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously (5-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Five VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) B. CASE NO. DP 08-77, PORTOLA VILLAGE LTD. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Development Plan to construct a single- story, 48 unit condominium development on a 10-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa Way in a PR-5, N (Planned Residential District - Maximum 5 Dwelling Units to the Gross Acre - Natural Factor/Restricted Develop- ment Overlay) Zone District. Mr. Williams reviewed this case pointing out that it is a parcel that exists between a condominium development of 20 acres to the south and a single family residential subdivision along Goleta Way. Mr. Williams pointed out it would be a 48 unit 2 and 3 bedroom project either single detached or duplex type. Further, other highlights were two tennis courts and two swimming pools for common use. Each unit has two covered spaces with a total of 96 covered spaces and 25 uncovered spaces, also 45 guest parking spaces. The applicant has proposed to preserve the date grove and citrus trees in the project. Mr. Williams then pointed out that the staff is recommending the project be approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 255 if the conditions are met. Mr. Williams further stated that the project does meet with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and is compatible with the area. Various letters in reference to the case were also pointed out. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions by the Commissioners of Mr. Williams. Commissioner Kelly noted that the condition on sidewalks was not there, but she also noted that it was on the plans. Further, she requested that it be stated in the conditions. Mr. Williams pointed out that it was shown on the Tract Map that goes along with the Development Plan. fir.. Chairman Berkey asked if this needed to be stated in the conditions. Mr. Williams stated that he felt it was adequately stated in the Tract Map, if the Commission elected to approve it. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Williams. Being none, he asked the applicant to speak at this time opening the Public Hearing on Case No. DP 02-77. STEVE FLESHMAN, 74-133 El Paseo, Palm Desert, (representing Portola Village Ltd. ) spoke to the Commission stating that the applicant concurred with the staffs recommendations. Mr. Fleshman also noted that the project was de- signed to agree with the surrounding area. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone present to speak in FAVOR of the pro- ject. Being no one, he then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. Being no one, Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kelly expressed her feeling that a masonry wall should be required on the southerly side, and if it is not, why not. Mr. Williams stated that there is an access road and irrigation line on this side of the project and a large setback on the Fred Rice project and the staff tried to match this setback instead of putting a wall between two developments. Commissioner Kelly then commented on the letter from Roger Harlow of the Desert Sands Unified School District and added that she felt the capacities of our schools were being met with the new projects and possibly over the capacity. Commissioner Kelly also noted that this was in conflict with Condition No. 5 in regard to the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry. Further, Commis- sioner Kelly noted her concern with the width of the street in the loop area and also expressed her desire that the fact that the development would be done in stages as stated in Condition No. 5, be deleted. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Six VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) B. CASE NO. DP 08-77 (Continued) Commissioner Kelly then asked if it could be brought before the Design Review Board that some architectural treatment could be applied to the outside area. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any more comments, then stated that the most important comment that Commissioner Kelly made was in regard to the develop- ment being done in stages and asked Mr. Williams if this had been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Williams stated that he believed it was a single project. Chairman Berkey reopened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to address himself to this question. FRANZ TIRRIE, 46-333 Burroweed, Palm Desert, responded to the question, stating that the amenities would be done prior to completion of the pro- ject but that he would like to be able to phase the project, due to the uncertainty of the market at this time. Chairman Berkey asked if Commissioner Kelly would like Condition No. 5 changed. Commissioner Kelly stated that she would like it deleted or the wording changed to read that the project be done in one stage. Commissioner Snyder stated that he felt it was not fair to impose a condition on this builder that is not imposed on other builders in regard to the project being done in stages. Commissioner Reading stated that he agreed with Commissioner Snyder. Chairman Berkey agreed stating that if all the streets are put in that the houses might be done in stages. ti�rr Mr. Williams stated that an addition could be made to the condition requiring that all public improvements and roadways be completed prior to the completion of the project. Chairman Berkey asked for a motion. Commissioner Snyder moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 255 be approved with the change in Condition No. 5, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Reading. Chairman Berkey asked if there was any further discusion. The motion was carried 4-1 with the following vote: AYES: SNYDER, READING, BERKEY, KRYDER NOES: KELLY Commissioner Kelly requested that her reason be noted in regard to Condition No. 5 and her reference to the school situation. Mr. Williams asked Chairman Berkey if this included a new condition stating that the upgrading of the architecture be reviewed by the Design Review Board process. Chairman Berkey asked if this was in agreement with those that vote AYE. It was in agreement. VANO C. CASE NO. DP 02-77(REVISED) , DEEP CANYON, LTD. , APPLICANT Request that a Development Plan be approved for the construction of a 212-unit residential development on property in the PR-5,N Zone District and located at the southeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams reviewed the case stating that this is a revised version of previously submitted plans. The latest submittal is a condominium development with access off Deep Canyon Road through a card type entrance. A pedestrian walk way runs throughout the project and the lots are all recessed a minimum of 30 feet of the travel way. Mr. Williams pointed out the various amenities of the project including four swimming pools, a recreational building, five tennis courts, and a lake. The project will be 212 single story, 2 and 3 bedroom units with 530 Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Seven VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) C. CASE NO DP 02-77(Revised) (Continued) parking spaces, 424 of which will be covered, plus all the streets have parking on one side. The development will have a low wall on the south and. east side, on the other perimeters a 6' wall will be used. In compliance with the Fire Marshal ' s recommendations, Lot No. 123 will be deleted to improve the access. Mr. Williams pointed out that the landscaping indicated in the center of the cul-de-sacs is not feasible and we suggest that it be deleted. Further, when the setback on a lot is less than 16' , staff is suggesting that one of the garage spaces be a carport type area since apron type parking would not be available in this project. Mr. Williams then went on to say that staff feels this is generally a good project and conforms to all the ordinances with the one exception of setbacks between the buildings. The ordinance requires 20 feet but when the ordinance was set up it was meant to apply to larger buildings not duplexes, so staff feels this should be modified. Further, the date and citrus trees will be preserved throughout the development. Mr. Williams then stated that staff is recommending that this project be approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 256 subject to the following revisions which include the ones previously mentioned and also that the tennis courts be recessed if lighted, underground utilities, delete Lot No. 123, add the proposed walls, and include 45 parking spaces in bays due to the lack of parking in the cul- de-sacs. Further, Mr. Williams stated that when the Tract Map is proposed the staff will recommend a signal at 44th Avenue and Deep Canyon and that transis- tion lanes into the project be added, also that some of the walk ways along the streets be dedicated as our City's bike ways. Overall staff feels this is a good project. Mr. Williams also noted that it was brought up in Study Session that in regard to the Fire Marshal 's recommendations of 1500 GPM is a typo and should read 2500 GPM. Mr. Engel confirmed that this was correct. Chairman Berkey asked if Mr. Williams felt that the conditions have addressed themselves to all the potential problems in the project. Mr. Williams stated he felt they did. Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any questions of Mr. Williams. Commissioner Kelly questioned the location of the date trees located in the proposed parking bays and if they would be eliminated. Mr. Williams stated they would be eliminated and possibly relocated. Commissioner Kelly asked if this was in the conditions that the date trees be relocated. It was indicated that this was in the conditions. Further, Commissioner Kelly wondered if the buildings were not too close to- gether. Mr. Williams stated that when the subdivision tract is discussed it will show that the dul-de-sacs will be widened. Chairman. Berkey asked if there were any further questions. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on Case No. DP 02-77 and asked if the applicant was present. STAN BELL, KIYOTOKI & BELL ASSOC. , 17748 Skypark Blvd. , Irvine, Ca. (re- presenting Deep Canyon Ltd. ) , spoke to the Commission stating that the applicant can meet all the conditions with the exception of Special Con- dition No. 11 regarding the carport and garage parking. Mr. Bell stated that during the Study Session he had attended, it had been discussed that perhaps an electric garage door opener could be used instead of the carport as suggested by staff on those units with less than a 16' setback. The applicant requested that this be an alternative in the condition. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Eight VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) C. CASE NO. DP 02-77(Revised) (Continued) Chairman Berkey asked if there were any question from the Commissioners at this time. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the request. ROBERT A. RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, asked if there was any condition for storm drains at this time. �r.w. Mr. Williams stated that this would be covered under the Tract Map and there is a condition for an easement and an agreement for future participation if any assessment district were created. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further questions at this time. Being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked if there were any questions of the Commission. Commissioner Snyder asked Mr. Williams if the electric garage door openers were sufficient. Mr. Williams stated, in discussing this with the applicant, staff indicated the electric garage door openers were acceptable, but that staff felt that the carport idea would better serve the project as people tend to use garages for storage. Chaiman Berkey asked if there were any more questions or comments. Commissioner Kelly asked if Condition No. 17 could be added in regard to the relocation of the affected date trees. Mr. Williams noted that Condition No. 17 would read: "Date trees affected by the required parking bays will be relocated ,4i� to elsewhere in the development. " /1' all issioner Kelly noted the letter from Mr. Dickson regarding the traffic � rt. Further, she stated that the report tends to falsify the situation his project is not included and that eventually Deep Canyon will extend � the way around to Magnesia Falls, which makes quite a big difference considering a traffic signal . Mr. Williams asked if Commissioner Kelly was referring to the Environmental Assessment form filed by the applicant in regard to traffic. Commissioner Kelly confirmed it was. Chairman Berkey stated that the traffic light would probably not be put in until the traffic would warrant it, which this project might cause. Chairman Berkey asked to have it verified that this would be discussed in the Tentative Tract. Mr. Williams stated that this was correct. Commissioner Kryder asked if Mr. Williams would go over Special Condition No. 11 again. Mr. Williams stated that staff is recommending that wherever the setback bet- ween the garage space and the edge of the curb on the cul-de-sac is less than 16 feet, then one of the garage spaces should become a carport. The theory being that there is no longer apron parking. The applicant would like elec- tric garage door openers to be an alternative. Commissioner Kryder asked Mr. Williams to explain again why he felt this would not be a solution. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Nine VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) C. CASE NO. DP 02-77(Revised) (Continued) Mr. Williams again stated that he felt garage areas tend to become storage areas and the apron parking replaces it. We feel the carpot is the solution. Commissioner Kryder asked if Mr. Williams felt that if there was no apron parking there would be less tendency to use the garage for storage. *40 Mr. Williams stated this was possible. Commissioner Kryder stated he disagreed with Condition No. 11 and was in agreement with the builder. Chairman Berkey pointed out that as it is worded now Condition No. 11 requires a carport and asked if it could be made an alternative along with the electric garage door opener. Mr. Williams stated that the condition could be changed to read, after parking space, "or electric garage doors be provided as approved through the Design Review Board process". Chairman Berkey asked if there were any other comments or questions. Being none, he asked for a motion. Commissioner Kelly moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 256 be approved with the change in Condition No. 11 , and the addi- tion of Condition No. 17, seconded by Commissioner Snyder; motion carried unanimously (5-0) . D. CASE NO. CUP 09-77, PALM DESERT RACQUET BALL AND HEALTH CLUB, INC. , APPLICANT A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 16,000 square foot r racquet ball and health club facility on an approximate 1 .2 acre parcel of land located at ,the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Painter's Path and Highway 111 . Mr. Williams reviewed the case pointing out that the parcel of land is zoned C-1 , S.P. (General Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) . The project will consist of 10 racquet ball courts, 45 parking spaces, and a walled in spa area. The staff is recommending as a part of the conditions that the building be recessed 4' to reduce the building to around 18' in height. Also due to the exposure of the building on Highway 111 , the texture of the building be changed to a rougher type and be reviewed as a part of the Design Review Board process. Further, the driveway be reduced to 20 feet and the additional 5 feet be placed in front of the building allowing for additional landscaping along the front of the building. Also, curb & gutter will be required along the whole perimeter of the building. Mr. Williams indicated that staff is recommending a new condition in which the applicant sign a future agreement to participate in the cul-de-sacing of Painter' s Path or channelization of the intersection. Mr. Williams then stated that with the conditions as stated, staff recommends the approval of this case by Planning Commission Resolution No. 257. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any question of Mr. Williams. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on Case No. CUP 09-77 and asked if the applicant was present. JIM SMITH, 45-296 Panorama Dr. , Palm Desert, (representing the company that wishes to develop the property) spoke to Commission regarding two of the conditions. Condition No. 4 calls for the building to be recessed, Mr. Smith stated that the court walls and wood floors are not practical below grade as it creates a moisture problem. The applicant suggests some berming in regard to Condition No. 5, but will leave that up to the Design Review Board process. Mr. Smith then spoke about Condition No. 13 and stated that the applicant was hesitant in signing a future agreement with an undetermined date, fixed amount or the applicants responsibility with such an agreement more defined. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any more question by the Commission. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Ten VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) D. CASE NO. CUP 09-77 (Continued) Commissioner Snyder asked about the sinking of the floors 4 feet. Mr. Williams indicated that the previous racquet ball facility that was approved, was recessed over 8 feet. If it's feasible, then staff feels it is necessary. The applicant may show evidence to do otherwise and have the resolution amended. WENDELL JACKSON, 6940 Argonne Circle, Buena Park, Ca. , spoke to the Commission stating that all the previous facilities of this type that he has done have had a moisture problem and if the building is lowered it would enhance the problem. Mr. Jackson indicated that they have proposed berming along the retaining walls in the front of the building and hope that this will satisfy the requirements of the staff. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further questions from the Commission. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the request. Being no one, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked if there were any further question or comments. Chairman Berkey asked Mr. Williams if the question on sinking the building 4 feet could not be left to the Design Review Board process. Mr. Williams stated that the condition could be changed to read, "shall be recessed or bermed as required through the Design Review Board process". Chairman Berkey then asked Mr. Williams to address himself to Condition No. 13. Mr. Williams stated in jest that this is the type of conditions that the staff likes. Mr. Cook interjected that he would like it noted for the record that Mr. Williams is speaking for the Planning Department, not speaking for the City Engineer when he states that this is the kind of condition that the staff likes, the City Engineer does not like this type of condition. Mr. Williams then continued stating that he was going to suggest that the condition be deleted. Chairman Berkey indicated that there was a suggestion to modify Condition No. 4 and delete Condition No. 13 and asked the Commission for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Reading to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 257 with the change to Condition No. 4 and the deletion of Condition No. 13, motion seconded by Commissioner Snyder; motion carried unanimously (5-0) . E. CASE NO. TRACT 9144 (REVISED) , DEEP CANYON LTD. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a revised map for a 217 lot subdivision for a planned residential development on property in the PR-5 Zone District and located at the southeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams reviewed the case stating this represents a Tentative Tract that was reviewed as Development Plan 02-77. The tract contains 217 lots of which .r 5 are to be common lots. Further, the subdivision ordinance requirements on parks is being met by the applicant paying fees on the assessed market value of approximately $16,480. Mr. Williams indicated that staff recommends ap- proval of the case by Planning Commission Resolution No. 258 subject to some 34 conditions with the addition of Condition No. 35 stating: "Any development shall conform to the requirements of DP 02-77(Revised) . " Mr. Williams indicated that the conditions recommend the widening of Deep Canyon to a 58 foot half street, that the interior streets shall be no less than 36 ft. in width, that stacking lanes be provided at car key operated entrances. Also, Condition No. 27 should be changed to read 25000 GPM as pointed out by the Fire Marshal in DP 02-77. Condition No. 20 provides for pedestrian walk ways Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Eleven VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) E. CASE NO. TRACT 9144 (REVISED) (Continued) throughout the development. Condition No. 25 points out the maintenance of the streets and common areas. Condition No. 4 suggests a 15 foot easement for drainage. Condition No. 5 notes that cul-de-sacs have a minimum curb radius of 40 feet. Finally, Condition No. 15 indicates the one-fourth parti- cipation in the cost of the signalization of Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any question of Mr. Williams. Being none, r.. he opened the Public Hearing on Case No. TT 9144 (Revised) and asked if the applicant was present. BILL TACHABERRY, Southwest Engineering, 17752 Skypark Blvd. , Irvine, Ca. , spoke to the Commission mentioning Condition No. 20 having to do with the walkways, stating that during his meeting with the staff it was suggested that this be with the approval of the City Engineer. Condition No. 34 mentions that all streets must be at least 36 feet in width, all the roads are planned to be 32 feet. The applicant stated that the parking requirements are met, and that he thought that the 32 feet could be acceptable since the parking requirements have been met, this only involves the cul-de-sac loop streets. Mr. Tachaberry questioned as to which condition concerned itself with the stacking lanes. Mr. Williams indicated Condition No. 33. Mr. Tackabery then continued stating that Deep Canyon was being widened and this should alleviate the need for stacking lanes. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Snyder asked for the stacking lanes to be better defined. Mr. Tackabery explained that the applicant has done more than is required on Deep uanyon and he feels that this could suffice in lieu of the stacking lanes. Further, he hoped that the City Engineer and staff would consider this again. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further questions from the Commission. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the request. Being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Williams or by Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams stated he would have to defer questions to the City Engineer. Mr. Cook spoke to the Commission regarding Condition No. 36 indicating that he had changed it to 32 feet but then considered it again and decided 36 feet would be necessary. Further , 36 feet allows for parking on both sides of the street whereas 32 feet only allows for parking on one side. If this condition is not complied with, there will be a shortage of parking and also there will be an enforcement problem which the City does not need with a very minimal law enforcement agency, not in terms of quality but in terms of quantity. Mr. Cook pointed out that on private streets the vehicle code is difficult to enforce and it is not necessarily enforced in other areas in town. Mr. Cook explained that he strongly recommended that Condition No. 34 be kept as is. In regard to Condition No. 33 Mr. Cook noted that we did not need another problem like that being experienced in front of Marrakesh. Further, the ap- plicant questioned the walkways and I suggest that you add to Condition No. 20 "subject to the approval of the City Engineer" so that we can come up with something workable. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions of Mr. Cook. Commissioner Snyder noted that this problem with parking was generally the same as stated before, with not enough distance between the street and the garage on the cul-de-sac. He questioned if there could be a trade off here between the street width and having a two car garage. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Twelve VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) E. CASE NO. TRACT 9144 (REVISED) (Continued) Mr. Cook explained that the 16 feet situation would cause cars parking across the sidewalk as you can see in other areas where the garages are sometimes not used and residents tend to use the sidewalks and this can create a pro- blem for people that might be walking in the evenings. Commissioner Snyder noted that he understood, but that most areas in the City r., didn' t have sidewalks and he was more concerned with the fact that if the streets were widened to 36 feet then you could park in the street. Mr. Cook stated that was correct, and yes it would relieve the problem. Mr. Williams pointed out that in order to allow parking on both sides of the street, the width would have to be 40 feet, 32 feet allows for parking on one side but it would take 40 feet, as stated in the ordinance, for parking on both sides, not 36 feet. Mr. Cook continued that perhaps the ordinance could be modified in this instance and that 36 feet would allow for two 10 foot traffic lanes and two 8 foot park- ing lanes. Commissioner Snyder indicated that as they are private streets it would be difficult to control as far as parking is concerned. Mr. Cook further stated that people tend to do what they want to do and can- not be forced to do otherwise. Commissioner Kryder asked to have the stacking lanes pointed out on the map. Mr. Williams noted the areas with the assistance of Mr. Cook. rr.. Commissioner Kryder questioned whether the key card gates could be set back to allow for more cars. Mr. Cook noted that this was one of the alternatives, and there were several other alternatives. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Cook. At this time Mr. Bell asked if he could speak. Chairman Berkey reopened the Public Hearing. STAN BELL, KIYOTOKI & BELL ASSOC. , 17748 Skypark Blvd. , Irvine, Ca. , spoke to the Commission about the required 32 foot width in the cul-de-sacs stat- ing that the cul-de-sacs are very small . He noted that he had made a special trip here to discuss these matters and it was not mentioned that 36 feet would be required. Mr. Bell further indicated that they have more than met the parking requirements and he does not feel that 36 feet is necessary. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further questions. He then asked if Condition No. 34 needs to spell out the difference in the streets a little more clearly. Mr. Williams pointed out that Condition No. 5 covered B Street, also A Street and is already 36 feet. Chairman Berkey indicated that 34 feet would only apply to the cul-de-sacs. err Mr. Williams confirmed this also included D and E Circle. Commissioner Kryder asked if there were any sidewalks, and if there was a park- ing apron in front of each house. Mr. Williams confirmed that there were no sidewalks, but that there were park- ing aprons noting that some are less than 20 feet. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Thirteen VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) E. CASE NO. TRACT 9144 (REVISED) (Continued) Chairman Berkey indicated that there might be an option available on Condition No. 33 in regard to the stacking. Mr. Cook pointed out that the wording of Condition No. 33 covered Mr. Kryder's concern. Chairman Berkey asked if the statement reading "or other restrictions to free flow of traffic" covered this concern. Mr. Cook indicated that as long as it is outside of the traveled way this would cover it. Commissioner Snyder asked to have Condition No. 34 discussed further. Chairman Berkey asked if there was any further discussion in regard to the reduction of the width to 32 feet. Commissioner Snyder suggested that the applicant be asked if it would create any major problems and what his objections were. Mr. Tackabery stated that he felt that stacking lanes could be taken care of by one of the alternatives mentioned. Further he stated that this is a planned development and so many parking spaces are required. The applicant stated he now feels that more parking spaces are being requested than are really required, pointing out that if 36 feet is complied with, a lot of green area will be lost. Mr. Tackabery indicated again that the parking requirement has been exceeded. Mr. Cook pointed out that the ordinance reads in reference to off street parking and noted that the need is for on street parking. Commissioner Krydor asked for this to be explained further. Mr. Cook stated that the ordinance reads 40 feet but noted that 36 feet would allow ample parking but 32 feet would not. Commissioner Reading questioned how the street width requirement could be changed at the last minute, noting that the applicant has complied with 34 conditions already. Mr. Williams verified the ordinance as reading "the location of residential off street .parki.hg is as approved in planned residential zones by the develop- ment plan". The issue being whether as on private or public streets this would be up to the discretion of the Commission. Chairman Berkey noted there were now 35 conditions and asked for a motion. Commissioner Kryder moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 258 be approved with the deletion of Condition No. 34 and the addition or replacement of Condition No. 34 with a new Condition No. 34, motion was seconded by Commissioner Reading; motion carried (4-1 ) with the following vote: AYES: READING, KRYDER, SNYDER, BERKEY NOES: KELLY Commissioner Kelly asked that it be noted that her reasons were that Condition No. 34 should stay as written. THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 9:00 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:10 P.M. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Fourteen VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) F. CASE NO. C/Z 07-77 GEORGE GRAZIADIO, APPLICANT Request for a Change of Zone from PR-3 (Planned Residential - Maximum of 3 Dwelling Units to the Gross Acre) Zone District to R-1-10,000 (Single-Family Residential - 10,000 Square Foot lot Minimum) on approxi- mately 5.2 acres located northerly of and adjacent to Haystack Road approximately 600 feet westerly of the intersection of Haystack Road and Portola Avenue. Mr. Williams reviewed the case noting the surrounding land and its various zones. Further, staff is recommending denial of the request noting that there are seven areas in which it is not consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance by the following: proposed development is not compatible with exist- ing developments, the existing zone would be more beneficial to the City, density is not sufficient, privacy would be limited for proposed dwellings, traffic congestion in the area would be increased on Haystack and would in turn increase the hazards and noise congestion for the ultimate occupants of the dwellings. Mr. Williams then indicated that in light of the unique shape and relationship of the land to a major street, the staff felt that an R-1 designation would not be compatible. Alternative zones could be open space or -0- density. Mr. Williams then indicated that the staff recommends that the case be denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 259. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions of Mr. Williams. Being none, he asked the applicant to speak at this time and the Public Hearing on Case No. C/Z 07-77 was opened. ROBERT A. RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, spoke to the Commission stating that he would like to make a presentation giving the Commission some background of the property and its proposed use. He also mentioned some of the areas that his three guest speakers would be talking about for the benefit of the Commission. HERBERT HUNT, 45-975 Highway 74, Palm Desert, addressed the Commission pointing our various aspects of Haystack Road. The opening up of an 84 foot right-of-way from Highway 74 to Portola created two long strips of land on either side of Haystack Road. Mr. Hunt also mentioned that the land along the west is in escrow. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that the strip of land is odd shaped and has been the step-child with Marrakesh not needing it. Staff suggested a wall between the parcel and Marrakesh, and he suggested that houses would look nicer than a wall , further if left vacant the City could obtain it and use it for a park. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 73-700 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, addressed the Commission pointing out that the staff report notes that the area the parcel is lo- cated in is highly flood prone. Mr. Housley noted that most of Palm Desert was flood prone during the flood. If Haystack were completely improved the water run off would be better. The Tentative Map points out the condition for 475 CSF or 74" storm drain or swell will be pro- vided. Mr. Housley feels that to be required to comply to this condition is an unfair assessment to the project. In summary the developer has offered to participate in an assessment district or any other future plan for the area. r. HARRY CREEPER, 568 N. Mountain View Ave. , San Bernardino, Ca. , addressed the Commission stating that he is the traffic consultant for the area. He then indicated that traffic on this road way is not a major issue, also speed must be considered in the area as it is residential with no heavy traffic flow. Mr. Creeper compared the roadways to those in Palm Springs stating that the proposed roadway would be sufficient for the area. The parking lanes provide a buffer for the driveways of the resi- dences. Further, he indicated that the lots are not very wide. Parks tend to create a traffic problem, also pedestrian traffic is increased. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Fifteen VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) F. CASE NO. C/Z 07-77 (Continued) Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kelly commented that Highway 74 is a major road way and is a bad speed way along with Haystack and Portola. Mr. Creeper noted that with the residential buildup on both sides it tends to slow down the traffic. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that Mr. Creeper's statements regarding resi- dential on both sides would reduce the speeding problem, was an inter- esting point to note. Mr. Ricciardi asked if Mr. Creeper has answered Commissioner Kelly's question. Commissioner Kelly indicated he hadn't and that she disagreed with Mr. Creeper. Mr. Ricciardi pointed out again that Mr. Creeper is an expert. Further, he indicated that the application is in direct disagreement with the staff. Also the applicant feels that R-1 is the best zone for the property and that a 10 foot easement would be provided for a holding lane which would help the traffic problem. Further, flooding is not a problem because the lots can be raised. Mr. Ricciardi then presented a letter addressed to Mr. Williams from John Dawson regarding the deed of land from Marrakesh to the City for a park. Mr. Ricciardi concluded that the project be studied further and not be denied at this time. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. Being no one, he then asked if there was any one wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. He then asked if there were any questions from the Com- missioners. Commissioner Kryder questioned the PR-3 designation as not being acceptable. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that the difference in the number of units would not eliminate the traffic or flood problem. Furhter this is a "bastard piece of property" that does not lend itself to PR-3 due to the problems this type of zoning would create. Also if the zone is changed to resi- dential it would be more harmonious to the rest of the area in regard to density and is well within the General Plan. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any other comments or questions. He then questioned Mr. Creeper about Haystack and its connections with Portola and Highway 74 and the traffic problem on this important arterial through street. With the proposed driveways it would create new problems. Mr. Creeper noted that Portola is projected to join with Highway 74 in the future and this would allow some of the through traffic to use Por- tola instead of Haystack. In response to the other point the road way is 64 feet wide and should be able to handle the capacity, also the 10 foot easement could be used as a buffer along either side of the roadway to handle the driveway situation. Mr. Creeper indicated that the prima facie speed in a residential area is 25 MPH unless otherwise posted. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further comments. Mr. Ricciardi added that one of the conditions could be, if the project is approved, that the developer put in circular driveways. Chairman Berkey closed the Public Hearing at this time and asked if the Com- missioners had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Kelly stated that the case should be continued due to the crucial nature of the project and be given further study. Commissioner Reading noted that with all the expert comments the Commission should be allowed to study it further. Commissioner Kelly asked if it would be possible to view the site. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Sixteen VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) F. CASE NO. C/Z 07-77 (Continued) Chairman Berkey asked for a motion to continue the case until the August 2nd meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Reading; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . Mr. Williams asked the Chairman to verify that he had reopened the Public Hearing and continued the hearing to August 2nd. Chairman Berkey confirmed Mr. Williams assumption. G. CASE NO. TT 10202, FRANZ TIRRIE AND RONALD RIMMER, APPLICANT Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map for a 49-lot subdivision on approximately 9.5 acres located at the southeast corner of the inter- section of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Williams reviewed the case pointing out the lots vary in size from 2281 square feet to 4992 square feet. Further in compliance with Standard Condi- tion No. 13 the City's Subdivision Ordinance will be met by paying a fee in an amount determined under the ordinance provisions. Also Special Condition No. 4 noted that the main street be widened out to 40' curb to curb in a 50' right-of-way. The area east of Lot No. 49 should be revised so that a secondary access would be provided to the subdivision as a part of the Re- vised Tentative Map as approved by the City Engineer. Further, the main street will be extended in accordance with the Revised Tentative Map. Mr. Cook pointed out that Special Condition No. 5 is a carry over prior to the rewriting of Special Condition No. 4 and could be deleted. Mr. Williams indicated that Standard Condition No. l covers the sidewalks ,., required on Portola. The staff recommends approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 259 with the deletion of Special Condition No. 5. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions of Mr. Williams. Being none, the applicant was asked to speak. STEVE FLESHMAN, 74-133 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, spoke to the Commission stating that the applicant had no specific objections but he would like to discuss the case. It was indicated that the project was designed to be a private neighborhood and if the 40 foot streets are complied with it would add to the traffic in the area. Emergency access has been pro- vided as stated in the ordinance. Further making the streets 40' wide would burden the home owner in the project and there are already several through streets in the area. The applicant feels that making the street public would do away with the idea of family type neighborhood. Mr. Flesh- man indicated that if the ordinance states 32 feet and then the builder is not allowed to build 32 foot streets then the ordinance should be changed. Also, 20 feet is provided in front of each driveway and parking is available on the street plus there are 25 parking spaces in bays throughout the complex. The intent of the project was to have no parking on the streets. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions by the Commissioners. He then asked about the emergency access and if the required was not widened. Mr. Fleshman stated he had no objection to the emergency access only to the widening of the street. He noted that if this development is tied into other projects it would cause further traffic problems. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in FAVOR of of in OPPOSITION to the project. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing and asked if there were any questions by the Commissioners. Chairman Berkey asked 'if this was being required as a public street and the necessity for it. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Seventeen VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) G. CASE NO. TT 10202 (Continued) Mr. Cook spoke to the Commission indicated that there is one area in town that has private streets and is now, due to the cost of maintaining the streets, asking the Council to make the streets public. Mr. Cook emphasized that pri- vate streets are not able to take advantage of the gas tax for maintenance costs. Also, it is not the intent to extend the street through to Deep Canyon but to create an access to the area for police, or to create a second way out of the development. Chairman Berkey questioned the loop road. Mr. Cook stated that it would tie in to the street with land to the east and would be a segment of a local residential street pattern. Chairman Berkey asked if there was a connection with Goleta? Mr. Cook indicated that it did not connect with Goleta. Commissioner Kryder pointed out that if it is intended or emergency use, why is it necessary to continue the 40' width all the way through. Mr. Cook verified that it would be a continuation of the street pattern as it is. Commissioner Kryder then noted that if made into a 40' loop it would eliminate a couple of homes. Mr. Cook confirmed that it would. Commissioner Kryder questioned the necessity for this. Mr. Cook explained that it creates another exit for the residents and an access road for police making their appointed rounds, allowing them a different route. Commissioner Kelly asked if this would not also be access for fire equipment. Mr. Cook confirmed this as being so. Commissioner Kryder asked if the widening of the existing or proposed 12 foot road would not serve for the purpose required. Mr. Cook pointed out the way it is shown now it would encourage the people coming from the east to come out this way and this should be avoided. Chairman Berkey asked if a crash gate would go up. Mr. Cook indicated not if it is a public street. He also noted that crash gates are difficult for the police to get through. Commissioner Reading commented that if this was a private street and several years later it was dedicated to the City wouldn't it have to meet certain re- quirements? Mr. Cook stated that would depend on the City Council . Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Fleshman talked in reference to Commissioner Kryder's question and VANO noted that the applicant does not want the street widened. Commissioner Kryder stated that he was aginst the widening. Mr. Fleshman continued by noting that the property to the east is zoned the same as this parcel and if this street is made public the developer of the property to the east may not agree with the street being public. The applicant is trying to create a 48 unit neighborhood and will comply with the widening of the road if the Commission insists, but the applicant cannot agree with having the road go straight through. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Eighteen VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) G. CASE NO. TT 10202 (Continued) Chairman Berkey questioned whether or not Special Condition No. 4 should be deleted. Mr. Williams pointed out that access has to go to the east or the north some- where around Lot No. 45. Mr. Cook feels the whole area should be looked into. Chairman Berkey asked Mr. Williams to address himself to Mr. Fleshman 's state- ment about the road going through the property to the east and commenting it to being a public street. Mr. Williams indicated that there has to be a road through to the east as it has been in the plans for the last three years. Chairman Berkey asked what would happen to the property to the east if they wanted a private condominium. Mr. Williams indicated that they would have to move it to one of the edges, also Catalina was designed as a public street but it has remained private. Mr. Cook indicated that it had been dedicated. Commissioner Snyder noted that if there were other public streets why this one in question had to be a public street. Mr. Williams pointed out that a secondary connection is needed for this sub- division for fire access. Commissioner Snyder pointed out that cases covered earlier have had private streets and now this case has to have dedicated streets. Mr. Cook then noted that the other parcels being larger had better internal circulation with better access, but being that this is a narrow parcel suffi- cient access is more difficult to achieve. Chairman Berkey pointed out that several streets including Catalina, Avenue 44, and Goleta provided traffic circulation. Mr. Cook noted that this is not needed for access from Deep Canyon to Portola, but is strictly for internal traffic problems. Chairman Berkey indicated that the real need for this street should be pointed out at this time from a public standpoint. Mr. Cook pointed out that this is a 13,000 foot cul-de-sac which is not a good thing and you need access on the other end. Chairman Berkey stated that there is one provided and it is a private street with a12' wide street leaving to the south. Mr. Fleshman then pointed out some facts about the previous case which was settled with a 20 foot wide emergency with a crash gate. Mr. Williams indicated there was no crash gate. Mr. Fleshman then asked if the Commission would like the crash gate removed and keep the road at 20 feet. He then pointed out that their only concern was that it remain a private neighborhood . He then asked if Condition No. 4 could be reworded and then iron out the problem at staff level . Chairman Berkey pointed out that if it was not resolved at this time it would have to be continued. Mr. Fleshman noted his hesitation of a delay and asked that it be taken care of as soon as possible. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Nineteen VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) G. CASE NO. TT 10202 (Continued) Chairman Berkey asked if Mr. Williams had any suggestions at this time. Mr. Williams pointed out that the applicant and the City Engineer had agreed that the streets would be curb to curb 40' and 50' . Mr. Fleshman stated if the streets are private they don 't need to be 50' . Mr. Williams indicated that there were sidewalks on both sides. Further the issue before the board is whether the street should be offered for public. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further questions before the Public Hearing is closed. The Public Hearing was declared closed and Chairman Berkey asked for the pleasure of the Commission. : Chairman Berkey asked for a motion. Commissioner Reading moved that sentence 1 of Special Condition No. 4 be deleted and Special Condition No. 5 be deleted, motion was seconded by Commissioner Kryder; motion carried (4-1 ) , with the follow- ing vote: AYES: KRYDER, SNYDER, BERKEY, READING NOES: KELLY Chairman Berkey noted that Commissioner Kelly voted no as she voted no on the Development Plan and gave the same reasons for this vote. H. CASE NO. TT 10428, GEORGE GRAZIADIO, APPLICANT Request for consideration of a Tentative Tract for a 49-lot subdivision' on approximately 9.5 acres located at the southeast corner of the inter- section of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Williams explained that this is a request for a Tentative Map for a 20-lot subdivision on property presently zoned PR-3 a matter discussed earlier for rezoning to R-1 ,10,000. Chairman Berkey questioned whether this case should be continued since the Development Plan was continued. Mr. Williams pointed out that this must be by the consent of the applicant to continue or the Commission must act on a Tentative Tract within 50 days of receipt. Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant would give his consent. Mr. Ricciardi gave his consent. Chairman Berkey noted a motion by Commissioner Snyder to continue the case to August 2nd, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Reading; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . VII . OLD BUSINESS Mr. Williams pointed out that a review of the Master Calendar for the College of the Desert Specific Plan had been submitted for review. It was noted that as a result of comments made at Study Session, the calendar should be reviewed and up- dated and brought back to the next Study Session on July 20th. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Twenty VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. REDEVELOPMENT REFERRAL CASE NO. RPA 03-77, C. G. DUNHAM, APPLICANT Request for a Redevelopment Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Medium Density Residential - 1 to Core Area Commer- cial for approximately 1 .5 acres of land located southerly of and ad- jacent to El Paseo between Lupine Lane and Sun Lodge Lane. Mr. Williams pointed out that this has been filed with the Planning Commission +a• by the Redevelopment Agency to determine its compliance with the City's General Plan. Staff recommends that the findings of the staff be forwarded to the City Council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 260. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions of Mr. Williams. Being none, he pointed out that this was not a Public Hearing but Mr. Dunham could speak if he so desired. Chairman Berkey asked for a motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Reading to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 260 that the proposed land use desig- nation change is in compliance with the General Plan, motion seconded by Commissioner Kelly; motion carried unanimously (5-0) . B. COUNTY REFERRAL CASE GPA 80 Mr. Williams suggested that rather than going over these items again 'Items B, C, D, & E) which were reviewed during Study Session, that the Commission act on these by directing the secretary to forward the comments of the staff to the County Land Division Committee with the revision to Tract 9838 regarding the blowsand to the west. Chairman Berkey asked for a motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Reading to forward staffs comments to the County Land Division Committee on Items B, C, D, & E; motion carried unanimously (5-0) . F. CASE NO. C/Z 07-76 (REVISED) Request that the City Planning Commission establish a Public Hearing date to consider a change of zone request on the property known as Parcel A which is presently zoned "Study". Mr. Williams reviewed the case noting that this has been discussed on several occasions and the request is for a Public Hearing set for a special meeting on August 9th to consider the removal of the "Study" designation and staff is recommending a change to a PR-10 on the property. Further, there is a revision to the resolution which would be Planning Commission Resolution No. 261 , to change the first WHEREAS, first sentence 'Is and far" to read "has progressed sufficiently to allow" also under sub point 2 under NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED add to the last sentence after "Acre" , "or other zoning deemed appropriate". Chairman Berkey asked for a motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Reading, to approve Planning Commission Resolution .. No. 261 ; motion carried unanimously (5-0). G. CASE NO. C/Z 04-76 (REVISED) Mr. Williams noted that he had intended to make the same recommendation as with the previous request but he now felt that the case needs more study in the area of the College of the Desert Specific Plan and suggested that this item be deleted from the Agenda. Chairman Berkey noted the item as deleted. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1977 Page Twenty-One VIII. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) H. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING SCHEDULE FOR JULY-DECEMBER, 1977 Mr. Williams noted that this is for the Commission to review and comment on , or use as a guide until the final schedule is prepared. It was pointed out that the neighborhood meetings were to be rescheduled. Chairman Berkey noted that the meetings would be in early September. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Chairman Berkey stated that the Design Review Board items had been looked over and reviewed during the Study Session and asked if the Commission had any questions at this time. Being none, he asked for a motion. Commissioner Snyder made a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 262, motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly; motion unanimously carried (5-0) X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams noted on Rancho Mirage Development Plan 77-P-20 he would r notify Rancho Mirage on Thursday that the staff had no comments. He asked the Commission if they had any further comments. Being none, he stated that the secretary would forward a no comment to Rancho Mirage. B. City Attorney Not present. C. Planning Commission Commissioner Kryder submitted a letter regarding the CVAG Housing Plan. Commissioner Kelly noted her concern about the school situation and request- ed that a letter be sent to Roger Harlow regarding the problem in the schools, perhaps City pressure would help. Mr. Williams asked if the Commission would like Mr. Harlow to attend the meeting of July 20th. Chairman Berkey noted it was a good idea and he should be advised of the Commissions concerns regarding the school situation. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Reading moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Snyder seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned_.a _11 :10 p.m. P L A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman