Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0802 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 2, 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 KRYDER III . ROLL CALL P sent: Commissioner SNYDER ��® Commissioner KRYDER �0 Chairman BERKEY sent: Commissioner KELLY Commissioner READING Also Present: Ralph J. Cipriani - Acting Director of Environmental Services Martin Bouman - City Manager Hunter Cook - City Engineer Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of July 20, 1977 r.r Mr. Cipriani requested that the following changes be made: Page 2, 6th paragraph from the top, 1st sentence, change "first meeting" to read "first public hearing". Page 4, last paragraph, last sentence, change the year "1980" to read "2000". Page 5, 4th paragraph, delete "at the next Planning Commission meeting". A motion of Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve the minutes of July 20, 1977, as amended, carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Berkey explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present and announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff's recommendations. No decisions were reached. A. CASE NO. TT 5565, SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT Request for approval of a Tentative Tract for a single-story, 217-unit condominium development on approximately 62 acres of land located southerly of and westerly of Irontree (private street) Drive and being a portion of the Ironwood Country Club in the PR-7 (Planned Residential- Maximum 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Zone District. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. Case No. TT 5565 (Continued) Mr. Cipriani reviewed this case stating that the staff recommended denial without prejudice due to the memorandum of the City Fire Marshal indicating inadequate fire protection and the City Engineer's memorandum indicating insufficient information regarding flood control . There being no questions from the Commissioners at this time. Chairman Berkey ' declared the Public Hearing open. DON SHAYLER, 73-893 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, (representing the applicant) spoke to the Commission, noting that after a discussion with the City Engi- neer, two additional conditions had been proposed for this case which would address the two principal issues of inadequate fire protection and inade- quate information regarding flood control measures. He mentioned that the City Engineer was satisfied that the two new conditions were adequate to cover both issues. Mr. Bouman informed the Commission that the City Council had discussed the fire and flood control problems at the last meeting and the potential problem that exists. He indicated that the Council is waiting for a report from the Coachella Valley County Water District with regard to the flood control issue and that a discussion had been held with Chief Flake and Fire Marshal Bud Engel in regard to the fire protection issue. Further, he indicated that the need for a fire station on the south side is the number one priority for the Fire Department at this time. Mr. Bouman stated that the City Council has instructed him to start a study with regard to a site and the allocation of money for a new fire station. In summation, the Planning Commission could pass the decision on to the City Council , because the Council is aware of the two issues and it would not be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to approve the Resolution subject to the conditions. r Commissioner Snyder stated that he felt the Planning Commission should handle the problem at this level and not shirk their responsibilities and pass the problem onto the City Council . Mr. Bouman added that the City Attorney had advised him that if the future owners of the property were advised of the two issues that the Planning Commission would not be shirking their duties. Chairman Berkey indicated that the Planning Commission had two choices , they could deny without prejudice or approve with the conditions as written. Mr. Bouman noted that the staff had recommended denial without prejudice, which would also bring the case before the City Council and they would have to deal with the problems. Mr. Shayler then asked that two conditions be added, that Standard Conditions No. 6, 12, 14, and 16 be deleted as they are covered by the zoning ordinance, that Standard Conditions No. 3 & 18 be changed, that No. 19 be more clearly stated, that Special Condition No. 1 be tempered, No. 2 & 5 be changed, No. 6, 7, 9, & 10 be deleted and that No. 11 be rewritten as there is no demand for sidewalks in that area. 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 ■r speak in OPPOSITION to the project. Being no one he declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Cook stated that with the added conditions the City would be protected and if the case was approved the developer could continue the project at his own risk. Further, if the case was denied the applicant could file again. Mr. Cook then addressed himself to the conditions pointed out by Mr. Shayler indicating that Standard Conditions No. 6, 12, 14 and 16 could be deleted, Special Con- dition No. 2 could be changed, No. 7 left as is , and No. 11 left as is, as there is a need for sidewalks in the area. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. Case No. TT 5565 (Continued) Commissioner Kryder noted that the fire control issue is very important and questioned again how it can be resolved. Mr. Bouman pointed out that the problem already exists and that the project in question could enhance the problem. Further, the Riverside County Fire Department report shows this problem is top of the list. Mr. Cipriani stated that the Fire Marshal 's memorandum had not been retracted as far as he was aware. Commissioner Snyder questioned the applicant as to whether he is ready to comply with the four conditions the Fire Marshal had requested be added to the list of conditions of approval in the event that the Commission decided to proceed with the project and requested that the four conditions be added to the special conditions of approval . Mr. Shayler indicated that the applicant would comply and that any further delay of the case would be a hardship on the developer. The Commission agreed that since the two issues have been brought to the attention of the City Council , they would not be shirking their duties. Chairman Berkey covered the conditions with Mr. Cipriani noting the changes to Standard Conditions No. 2 and 18, the deletion of Standard Conditions No. 6, 12, 14, and 16, the changes to Special Conditions No. 2, 5, and 8 and the addition of the Fire Marshal ' s conditions and the City Engineer's conditions. A motion was made by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kryder to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 265 with the conditions as stated; carried unanimously (3-0) . B. CASE NO. C/Z 07-77, GEORGE GRAZIADIO, APPLICANT Request for a change of zone from PR-3 (Planned Residential-Maximum of Three Dwelling Units to the Gross Acre) Zone District to R-1 10,000 (Single-Family Residential-10,000 Square Foot Lots Minimum) on approxi- mately 5.2 acres of land located northerly of and adjacent to Haystack Road approximately 600 feet westerly of the intersection of Haystack Road and Portola Avenue. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the case stating that the matter was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 1977 so that the Commission could weigh all the input received on this request and since that meeting a number of letters in opposition had been received. Further staff has not received any additional information which would cause a change in the staff's position regarding this case and staff still feels the PR zone offers more flexibility than the R-1 with regard to mitigating possible adverse impacts relative to traffic, drainage, scenic view preservation, etc. In conclusion, staff is still recommending denial for the reasons stated in the Staff Report under Section III and also the proposed rezoning would not encourage superior site-planning and environ- mental design. There being no questions from the Commissioners at this time, Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open. ROBERT A. RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, (representing the applicant) spoke to the Commission and reiterated his statements given at the last public hearing on this case and noted a letter from Marrakesh (Exhibit A) . He also noted that with a R-1 zone each property owner would be responsible for his area, with PR zone all owners would be responsible for all common areas. 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. Being no one he declared the public hearing closed and asked for a motion. Commissioner Kryder moved, Commissioner Snyder seconded that the request be denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 266; carried unani- mously (3-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page Four VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) C. CASE NO. TT 10428, GEORGE GRAZIADIO, APPLICANT Mr. Cipriani noted that this is related to the previous case and staff is recommending denial . Commissioner Snyder made a motion, Commissioner Kryder seconded that this request be denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 267; carried unanimously (3-0). sir.. D. CASE NO. CUP 12-77, DIANE LOHMAN, APPLICANT Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a 700 square foot restaurant in the Plaza Taxco II commercial complex to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Sage Lane. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the case noting that the parking requirement might be adjusted. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions from the Commission, being none he declared the Public Hearing open. CURT DUNHAM, 73-210 E1 Paseo, Suite 2F, Palm Desert, (representing the applicant) spoke to the Commission indicating that the applicant agreed with the staff's recommendations. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone present who whould 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. Being no one, he declared the public hearing closed and asked for a motion. Commissioner Snyder moved, Commissioner Kryder se- conded that the Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 268; carried unanimously (3-0) . E. CASE NO. CUP 10-77, PORTOLA GOLF RANCHOS, LTD. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to build and operate a 201-lot mobilehome subdivision and 9-hole golf course as a part of the final phase of the Portola Country Club (formerly known as the Sun King project) and located on 63 acres of land east of Portola extended and south of 42nd Avenue extended. Mr. Freed reviewed the case emphasizing the staff's concern on the perimeter treatment of the project, that a right-of-way might be needed in the future and the need for a buffer on the east side which borders on a sand dune. Chairman Berkey questioned the 10 foot border along the fairways and the gates leading to Rebecca Street not being free flow. Mr. Freed indicated that the Design Review Board process would handle the border issue and the gates are not compatible. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open. FRANK HAMERSCHLAG, 1007 S. Palm Canyon, Palm Springs, (representing the applicant) spoke to the Commission addressing himself to several of the conditions, requesting changes in Standard Condition No. 3, 8, and 13 wow and that Condition No. 6 be deleted. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions from the Commission at this time. Being none, he asked if there was any present wishing to speak in FAVOR of the request. TERRY HACKETT, 48 Canyon Island Dr. , Newport Beach, (legal council for the applicant) spoke noting the beauty of the project and that the pre- sent residents are all pleased with it. He also questioned the 33 feet of land needed by the City and the requirement for more vehicle parking. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the request. There were none. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page Five VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) E. Case No. CUP 10-77 (Continued) Some discussion followed between Mr. Hamerschlag, Mr. Hackett and Mr. Freed with regard to the right-of-way requirement, the 33 feet requirment and its effect on the project. Mr. Cook pointed out that the northside of the property is the logical loca- tion for a through street as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and that the east side is an extension of Rebecca allowing for a connection with an east-west street. JACK BENNETT, Associate Partner, 2101 Arelia St. , Newport Beach, pointed out that the applicant had reduced the density from 350 to 210. Mr. Freed reviewed the conditions and suggested changes to the Commission and the addition of Condition No. 18 and 19. Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant would like to make a rebuttal at this time. Mr. Hamerschlag stated that he felt Condition No. 19 should be reviewed later. Mr. Hackett asked to have it confirmed that the conditions are part of the resolution before the Commission at this time. Chairman Berkey informed him they were. Mr. Hackett noted that future agreements create problems. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed at this time. Discussion followed regarding the maintenance of the streets in the future, the blowsand issue, and the right-of-way issue. fir.+ Commissioner Kryder noted that Condition No. 18 should be changed and asked why Condition No. 19 was needed. Mr. Freed pointed out that in previous projects there never seemed to be enough vehicle parking and also the wording could be changed to read "sub- ject to the approval of the Design Review Board process Mr. Hackett questioned the Design Review Board process and how it was handled and by whom. The process was explained. Chairman Berkey noted the changes to Condition No. 3, 6, and 8 and the addition of Condition No. 18 and 19 and asked for a motion. Commissioner Kryder moved and Commissioner Snyder seconded that Planning Commission Resolution No. 269 be approved; motion carried unanimously (3-0) . THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 9:25 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:35 P.M. F. CASE NO. CUP 11-77, ROGER AND BARBARA FULLER, APPLICANT Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 48 space parking lot in the R-3(4) zoning district to be located on Tumbleweed Lane between Ocotillo Dr. and Sage Lane. �r Mr. Cipriani reviewed the case and noted that Condition No. 15 would be deleted. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions by the Commission at this time. Being none, he declared the Public Hearing open. ROGER FULLER, 24 Greenoaks, Atherton, Ca. noted he agreed with the staff's recommendations. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page Six VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) F. Case No. CUP 11-77 (Continued) Chairman Berkey asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the request. JOHN OUTCAULT, 74-133 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, spoke to the Commission regarding the required buffer on the east and west side which is re- quired by the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Berkey asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION of the re- quest. BILL WRIGHT, 48-114 Silver Spur Trail , Palm Desert, property owner, noted he opposed the exit on Tumbleweed. JOHN WINSLOW, Chucker Inn, Palm Desert, opposed to parking lot. JACK PATTERSON, Chucker Inn, Palm Desert, too much traffic on Tumble- weed already. JOAN GROSSMAN, Chucker Inn, Palm Desert, too much traffic already. ALFRED GUFERRO, owner of Vista Shadows, opposed to parking lot. JUDY PARKER, Adobe Villas, traffic at corner is already bad. Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant would like to make a rebuttal at this time. BARBARA FULLER, 24 Greenoaks, Atherton, Ca. stated that she did not wish for the parking lot to be an eyesore or for the project to hinder the adjacent dwellings or residents. Mr. Outcault noted that there would be a block wall , a 10 foot setback with a buffer and on Tumbleweed a 15 foot setback. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Discussion followed with regard to the exit on E1 Paseo and its location. The City Engineer felt that a middle of the block exit would create traffic problems, the residents were in opposition to one on Tumbleweed. Mr. Cipriani noted that staff wished that Condition No. 15 remain deleted. Chairman Berkey explained to the residents in opposition that a parking lot is allowed in this zone. Mr. Cipriani noted that there is already a shortage of parking in the area. Chairman Berkey asked for a motion. Commissioner Snyder moved, Commissioner Kryder seconded that the Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 270; carried unanimously (3-0) . G. CASE NO. DP 09-77, CHARLES D. ROOT, APPLICANT Request for approval of a Development Plan to construct 9 condominium units on a 1 .5 acre parcel on the west side of Verba Santa Drive and south of Pitahaya. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the case pointing out Special Conditions No. 1 , 2, and 5. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to speak at this time. CHARLES D. ROOT, 45-860 Ocotillo, Palm Desert, spoke to the Commission noting his agreement with the staff. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. Being no one, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for a motion. Commis- sioner Snyder moved, Commissioner Kryder seconded that the Commission approve Plan- ning Commission Resolution No. 271 ; motion carried unanimously (3-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page Seven VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) H. CASE NO. DP 10-77, CURT DUNHAM, APPLICANT Request for approval of a Development Plan for a 20-unit residential con- dominium, which will be the second and final phase of the Sandroc project and which will be located on a 2.48-acre site on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and east of Tumbleweed Lane. Mr. Freed reviewed the case pointing out various requirements of the City Engineer. Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Being none, he declared the Public Hearing open. CURT DUNHAM, 73-210 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, spoke to the Commission regarding the conditions. He expressed his view that Standard Con- dition No. 9 be deleted as it is covered in Condition No. 3, and re- quested changes in Special Condition No. 1 , 4, and 5, and noted with regard to Special Condition No. 5 that he doesn't own the adjacent property. Mr. Cipriani read a letter (Exhibit B 1-5) from the adjacent property owners noting their concern for the lighting of the tennis courts. Some discussion followed regarding the need for sidewalks and the water drainage from Phase I to Phase II. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the request. Being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for a motion. Commissioner Snyder moved, Commissioner Kryder seconded that the Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 272 with the deletion of Standard Condition No. 9, and changes to Special Condition No. 1 , 4, 5, and 6; motion carried unanimously (3-0) . VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Snyder asked that the staff, with the help of the City Engineer study the various codes in the City that cover; whether 32 foot roads are adequate, vertical curbing on all new developments, restrictions on parking in downtown areas, and other areas of concern with all the new development in the City. Mr. Freed stated that a Staff Report would be prepared for a Study Session in the near future. Chairman Berkey asked for a motion on the above suggestion by Commissioner Snyder. Moved by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kryder that a staff report be prepared; carried unanimously (3-0). XI. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Mr. Freed noted that the cases had been reviewed at the Study Session prior to the meeting and asked if the Commissioners had any further ..r questions. Mr. Cipriani noted that Case No. 79MF had been withdrawn by the applicant and the case would be deleted from the Resolution. Being no questions Chairman Berkey asked for a motion to accept the Design Review Board cases by Planning Commission Resolution No. 273 with the deletion of Case No. 79MF; moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Snyder; carried unanimously (3-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page Eight X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff - Mr. Cook took this opportunity to introduce Mr. Clyde Beebe, the City's new Assistant Civil Engineer, to the Commission. wow B. City Attorney - Not present C. Planning Commissioners - The Commissioners thanked the staff and the City Engineer for the com- plete information that was provided for their review prior to each meeting. XII . ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Kryder moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Snyder; carried unanimously (3-0). Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. RALPH J. CI IA I , cting Secretary ATTEST: GEORGE B RKEY, Chairman /ks EXHIBIT A +r POST OFFICE BOX 1143 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 August 2, 1977 TO: Robert Ricciardi and members of the Planning Commission City of Palm Desert Palm Desert, CA 92260 In regards to the Haystack property which adjoins the Marrakesh development to the south, we, Marrakesh Building and Country Club Corporation have no intention of personally developing this property now or in the future. The Marrakesh homeowners and the Marrakesh Country Club members are completely satisfied and happy with their present planned development within our 155 acres . They definitely do not want any development outside of this present acreage to be considered a part of Marrakesh, architecturally or even the use of the same colors . Yours truly, MAR KES BUILDING CORPORATION a�� Jo wson ai an of the Board JWD:mf CC: Brian M. Jones EXHIBIT B-1 Post Office Box 804 Palm Desert, CA 92260 August 1, 1977 City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Palm Desert Planning Commission Re : Sandroc hearing - Case #DP10-77 Gentlemen: Enclosed are a letter and a petition submitted to the Palm Desert Council and the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, in 1974 appealing that corrections be made to eliminate the glare caused by the tennis court lights at Sandroc. Inasmuch as they are asking for approval to proceed with their project, we think that now is a very appropriate and opportune time to require them to correct and eliminate this problem. Sincerely, Cal Holdsworth Enclosures CAL HOLDSWORTH Builder P.0. Box 804 Palm Desert,California 92260 (714) 34 6-65 28 Rentals Sales EXHIBIT B-2 Post Office Box 804 Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 1.3, 1974 The City Council City Hall 73-021 lil Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: As a postscript to our petition and plea dated March 5, 1974, we would like to inform the City Council that we have been in touch with the Dorco Company (Sandroc Condominiums) . They admit their lights are toc bright and they have indicated they would only to°.n them on when som,c,)nc is playing and on Friday and Saturday nights for advertising purposes. tie feel that thia is only a temporary reprieve and that some action should be taken to regulate ex- cessive lighting, not only in This case but in any other and future developments. Sincerely, ;'al Holdsworth EXHIBIT B-3 PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION P.U. BOX 1244 PALM DLSER'T. CALIFORNIA 9226U Taisrxorrs (714) 346-2804 rrr A Non-Profit Corp mWx March 21 , 1974 Palm Desert City Council 73-021 Fl Paseo Palm Desert , Ca. 92260 Subject : Tennis Court Liphtinq at Sandroc Condominiums Gentlemen : The Board of Directors of Palm Desert Property Owners Association , at its meeting on March 18 , 1974 , en- dorsed the attached petition on the above subject dated March S as being reasonable and in the best interests of all of the people in the effected area. At the time our Architectural Committee approved the lighting for the tennis courts it was our understand- inp that the luminaires Would be mounted in such a manner as to result in minimum disturbance to the neighhorhood , used at reasonable times , be shielded by aciditiorial structure (not yet built) and used for the benefit of players rather than for advertising nurr.oses . we will appreciate anv action the •Council may find approrriAte to alleviate the present difficulty of the adjacent residents . Very truly yours , Douglas R. Hands , Secretary enclosure nr EXHIBIT B-4 ' e City Council "'Ity Hall 73-021 E1 Paseo {alm Desert, CA 92260 Subject : The lighting of the new tennis courts at the Sandroc Condominiums adjacent to Shadow Mountain Drive between Lupine Lane and Tumbleweed Lane 1:�ent lemen: We, the undersigned, are residents adjacent to and affected by these intensive lights and we respectfully petition and plead for some relief. When these lights are on in the even- ing hours, from before dark to past 10:00 P.M. , they do greatly affect our well-being and enjo,,Tment of our properties here in Palm Desert. They appear to us to he unnecessarily intense; too high and are directed not only onto the tennis courts but onto our exposed windows, patios and yards. These lights are also directed upon Shadow Mountain Drive to such an extent that we believe their glare could become a traffic hazard. We all realize that tennis playing has become very popular here in Palm Desert and we do not wish to impose our wishes or restrictions upon our neighbors. However, we do hope and plead 1 that our neighbors will not impose_ these disturbing lights upon us. We believe the height of these li��hts can be lowered, can be less intense and can be directed onto t-he tennis courts instead of into our yards, patios and our windows. And cannot these lights be turned on only when these courts are in use? We cordially invite each of you'to visit any of us during the evening hours when these lights are on to see for yourselves the disturbing effect it has on our enjoyment of our beautiful desert evenings. Sincerely, NAME t AD/DRF S Ste/ fff ZZ ZW ,ems 17 �`J .-�. l" =� EXHIBIT B-5 NAME ADDRESS PAGE Lit ' fir /� � T`� �/ � t� J'T,- ''�.` `c a�" ski %�✓� ��,:.ti' tow f � e i