The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0228 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 28 , 1978 7 : 00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The re�ularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Berkey at 7 :00 p .m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall . �wr II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Kelly III . BOLL CALL Present : Commissioner KELLY Commissioner READING Commissioner SNYDER Chairman BERKEY Excused Absence : Commissioner KRYDER Others Present : Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Clyde Beebe - Director of Public Works Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �""` A. MINUTES of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of February 15, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Snyder, the minutes were approved as written; carried unanimously (4-0) . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr . Williams noted that all written communications received would be covered under the appropriate cases. VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the Com- mission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. Chairman Berkey explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. Case Nos . DP 02-78 and 72C, ROBERT RICCIARDI for COLUMBIA SAVINGS, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and preliminary � Design Review to permit the construction of 5 commercial structures having a total of 32 ,400 sq. ft . on approximately 3 . 5 acres within the P.C. (3) , S.P. zone located at the southwest corner of Highways lll and 74. Mr. Williams reviewed the cases noting that there would be a new median break on El Paseo bu.t no access routes on Highway 74 due to the congestion already evident on that stretch of road. He noted that the �esign Review Board had requested that the architecture be refined and upgraded as well as the landscaping. i1lr . Williams then reviewed the conditions of approval. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission February 28, 1978 Page Two VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Case Nos . DP 02-78 and 72C (Cont . ) Mr. Williams noted a letter received from Mr . Fred Hameetman stating that there was a deed restriction on the property (see Ex- hibit A) . He indicated that the applicant was not aware of a deed restriction and it had not shown up in the escrow or title search report . Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any questions of Mr. Williams at this time. Commissioner Reading asked about sidewalks along Highway 74, noting that he felt it would be a traffic hazard to have people walking along Highway 74. Commissioner Snyder felt it would be safer to have people on the sidewalk than in the street . Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open at this time and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission . ROBERT RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111, architect for the applicant, addressed the Commission noting that there was no known deed restriction and it had been completely checkedout by the H. F. Ahmanson Co. He noted that sidewalks had not been proposed on High- way 74 because they might encourage pedestrians or skateboarders and they would like to keep the sidewalks on the interior. Mr . Ricciardi noted that the applicar.t agreed with the conditions. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project . Being none, he declared � the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commis- � sion. � Commissioner Snyder stated that he still wanted exterior sidewalks on Highway 74. Commissioner Kelly agreed with Commissioner Snyder. Chairman Berkey noted that it would make for safer conditions with sidewaTks on Highway 74 . Commissioner Reading commended the applicant for exceeding the parking requirement but noted he objected to sidewalks on Highway 74. Commissioner Reading made a motion to approve the case with the conditions as stated, being no second the motion was dropped. On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Snyder the case was approved with the addition to Special Condition No. 9 stating sidewalks will also be installed on Highway 74, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 335; carried unanimously (4-0) . B. Case No. TT 12050, LINSCO AGENCIES , LTD. , Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 12 residential lots and 1 common lot on approximately 1 . 39 acres within the R-3 20, 000( 3) , Z.P . zone generally � located on the east side of Ocotillo, south of Tumble- '� weed. ,� Mr. Williams reviewed the case noting that sidewalks were required as stated in Special Condition No. 1 Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission February 28, 1978 Page Three VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont. ) B. Case No. TT 12050 (Cont. ) HAROLD HOUSLEY, 73-700 Highway lll , representing the applicant , addressed the Commission and noted that he had no objections to the conditions, but asked if the sidewalks had to be standard City sidewalks or could they be special . � Mr. Beebe stated that the sidewalks could be either standard or special as long as they did not conflict with the utilities . It was noted that Special Condition No. 1 would have the addition of "acceptable to the Director of Public Works" . - Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project . BERT KRIEGER, 44-565 Verba Santa, asked about the trash area. Chairman Berkey stated that the trash area had been moved up to the front of the project on Ocotillo. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Reading, the Commission approved the case as amended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 336 ; carried unanimously (4-0) . C. Case No. VAR 02-78, FRANCISCO J. URRUTIA, Applicant �"` Request for approval of a Variance to allow a 10 ' - 6 south sideyard setback and a 13 ' north side yard setback where 15' setbacks are required for additions to a single- family residence located on the east side of Verba Santa, south of Tumbleweed. Mr. Williams reviewed the case and gave some information on the zone and its requirements for setbacks, noting that new additions must conform to the Ordinance requirements. Mr. Williams also stated that due to the location of the swimming pool, it presents some unique circumstances . Chairman Berkey declared the Pubiic Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak. The applicant was present but had no comments at this time. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project . Being none , he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the Commission approved the case by Planning Commission Resolu- tion No. 337; carried unanimously (4-0) . �, D. Case No. PM 11311, COMPTON RUSSIE & HARTLEY, Applicant A request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide into 2 lots a 1 . 10 acre parcel within the C-1 , S .P . zone generally located on the south side of High- way 111 , west of Deep Canyon. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission February 28, 1978 Page Four VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) D. Case No. PM 11311 (Cont. ) Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted that the request complies with all the requirements of the zoning ordinance . He :� then reviewed the conditions. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open an� asked if the applicant wished to speak. The applicant was not present . He then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project . Being none, he declared the Public Hear- ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the Commission approved the case by Planning Commission Resolu- tion No. 338; carried unanimously (4-0) . E. Case No. CUP O1-78, CARLO J. VETRANO, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a 1 , 360 sq. ft . delicatessen in the Pinard Building within the C-1, S .P. zone generally located on the south side of Highway 111 , east of Portola. Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted that the parking is sufficient . Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time . The applicant was � present but had nothing to say at this time. Chairman Berkey � asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project . Being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission . On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Snyder, the Commission approved the case by Planning Commission Resolution No. 339; carried unanimously (4-0) . VII . OLD BUSINESS A. Advanced Planning Program for 1978-80 Mr. Williams reviewed some of the dif�erent studies proposed in the staff report and noted a letter received from residents in Section 30 (Exhibit B) . ll�r. Williams gave the list of studies in order of their priorities as stated by the Commission which are as follows : 1 . Specific Plan - West of the Palm Valley Channel 2. Policy Statement 3. Master Development Plan of Streets and Highways 4. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update ° 5. North Sphere Area - Growth Management Plan � 6. Civic Center Design � 7. BLM Land - Acquisition Plan 8. Recreation Needs Study 9. Other Studies Mr. Williams noted that these priorities will be discussed further at a joint Study Session with the City Council on March 30th. On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Snyder the Commission approved the above list as a preliminary pro- gram to be recommended to the City Council ; carried unanimously (4-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission February 28, 1978 Page Five VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration to initiate prezoning proceedings for pro- posed City Annexation No. 5 Mr . Williams noted that a request had been received from the residents in this area to be annexed and these are the types of zoning that is proposed for the area if it is annexed. He noted that �,,, early study of zoning will alleviate a lot of future problems with regard to density, traffic, land use , etc. Chairman Berkey asked if this would allow the staff to make recommendations at the time of the public hearing. Mr. Williams noted this is the reasoning behind prezoning. On a motion by Commissioner Sny�er, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the Commission directed the Secretary to initiate proceedings by Planning Commission Resolution No. 340; carried unanimously (4-0) . B. Consideration of determination of compliance to the General Plan of proposed City �c�uistion of v�rious lots for the implementation of the College of the Desert Area Specific Plan. Mr. Williams noted that this is one of many implementations of the College of the Desert Area Specific Plan and that is just a proce�ural matter. On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Snyder, the Commission determined that the proposed planned acquisi- tion will conform with the adopted General Plan and by Planning Com- ;�,,,,,, mission Resolution No. 341 , this determination will be forwarded to the City Council ; carried unanimously (4-0) . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of February 21, 1978. Mr. Cigriani reviewed the cases noting that Case No. 73C was an old project with a new presentation. The project to be located next to Sunshine Meat , Fish & Liquor. The Design Review Board found no problems with the proposed project . Regarding Case No . 74C, the Design Review Board is requesting a sign program be submitted and noted that the interior circulation might create problems. Mr. Beebe noted that the alley is at an acute angle to El Paseo and he hopes that it will be realigned. Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case No . 110MF and noted the suggestions Mr. Johnson had made regarding the landscap- ing. Regarding Case No . 111MF, Mr. Cipriani noted that the Design Review Board had selected 4 of 5 elevations to be used and had requested that the landscaping be improved. On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded 'by Commissioner Reading, the Commission approved the actions of the Design Review Board by Planning Commission Resolution No . 342; carried unanimously (4-0) . � X. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr . Charles Martin addressed the Commission regarding Section 30. Chairman Berkey informed him that it was the #1 priority for the advanced. ��lanning program for 1978-80. Mr . Martin asked if there would be a moratorium on this area during the study. Mr. Williams indicated that there would be none and that there should be no problem getting building permits during the study. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission February 28, 1978 Page Six XII . COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams stated that there would be a conference in n�onterey in April , put on by the California Chapter of the American Institute of Planners . He noted that the conference and its agenda would be discussed further at the next study session . B. City Attorney - Not present C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Kelly stated that the City yard did not have oleanders all the way around it as proposed and that it was an eyesore as you entered town . Mr . Williams stated that he would check into it . Commissioner Reading stated that the Moller property was getting unsightly. Mr . Williams stated that they have been notified of the problem and it should be taken care of shortly. Some discussion followed with regard to the Blue Nun restaurant and if it complies with the ordinance. Mr . Wi1- liams noted that it complies and that the sign has been removed. XIII . ADJOURNMENT � � On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Reading, the meeting was adjourned at 8 :20 p .m. ; carried unanimously (4-0) . �`� ' PAUL A. WILLIAl!�S, Secretary ATTEST: � GEORG BERKEY, Chairm n /ks :;� EXHIBIT A GAL-AMERIGAIm1 INCO�'IE PROPERTY �DS 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST NINTH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (213) 277-6318 � February 23 , 1�78 Mr . Paul Williams Planning Director City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Paul : In confirmation of our telephone conversation today, en- closed is a copy of the plan submitted to me by Columbia Savings & Loan, showing the building setback line. I appre- ciate your continuance of this item to your meeting at 1 : �� p .�. on Wednesday, March 15 . Please send copies of ar_y applications or plot plans regarding this development to us immediate _-. Thank you for your consideration. � --�Sincerel � � �.. "`t J � .Y�'�c.,' _ �--- Fred Hameetman for the General Partner FH:ms Enclosure � � � � � � �►r..� �-{ �; ,,,- „ E ._.� __. ,�� ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT EXHIBIT B City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 �... Attention: Mr, Paul Ao Williams-Director of Environmental Services Re: Section #30, City of Palm Desert For many years the homeawners of Sectiton #30 of Palm Desert have been ignorned by their cityo The owners in Section 30 have been trying to make the City realize that they are indeed part of the City of Palm Desert only to be given a deaf ear and to be told that "someday someone will look into your problems", This has been going on for the past eighteen years without one single thing ever being doneo And, . , ,it was not for want of trying on the part of the homeowners and the landowners of Section 30, They have been talking, writing letters and appearing at City Council Meetings in vain for years, The conditions in Section 30 finally became so hazardo�� and t�;=.�9. because of the complete neglect of the City of Palm Desert that many of the homeowners were forced to vacate their homes because: (I) they could not get to their houses anymore and (2) the fire and police protection were not able to reach them in their moment of need, Some of the homeowners then resorted to renting out their houses but irr. could not command a fair rent because the rentors were faced with the same problems, Consequently the houses which were rented developed into "low class" rentals, These "low class" rentors very quickly destroyed the interiors of many of these homes and the owners in their despair that the Gity was not doing anything to help them with their road problem s had no choice but to sit and WAIT FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN, l, The Coachella County Valley Water Company (hereafter referred to as CCVWG) some years ago built a damn to facilate flood control, Thereby they created the flood control channel directly behind Indian Greek Villas on Hiway #74, Heretofore this flood channel had been a small natural desert wash which the homeowners of Section 30 hardly noticed, let alone EVER had any difficulty in crossing, The homeowners used the dedicated County road called Thrush to enter off Hiway #74, Thrush Road then divided into three different roads to facilitate the homeowners living there, After CGVWC created the large storm drain, it usurped two of the three roads which were now in the middle of their new flood control channel, The homeowners effected by the loss of their roads had to then use NEW entrys off Hiway #74 thus creating THREE entrances where only one was necessary befc¢reo 2, Indian Creek Villas was then constructed and again the homeowners of Section 30 were ignored when the City let Indian Creek Villas build completely �""` around Thrush Road and the Gity actually closed off Thrush Road where the villas end, These homeowners of Section 30 effected by this closing now had to use any alleyway of Indian Creek Villas to get to their homes and come over the wash in a new place, EXHIBIT B II 3, The CC VWC has not maintained the three entrys over the flood control channel which they had created, Even in the mid of the dry season your automobile can get stuck in the sand when rossing this channel, As for when it rains and there is water in the channel, the homeowners of Section 30 are literally marooned as there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to get through the water in the flood control channel as it is so high and filled with rocks and trees, etc, which have been torn loose by the water. 4. The CCVWC put water mains in the private roads winding through Section 30. In doing so they took so much of the existing road away that these private roads are, in most places, down to ROCK BOT'TOM with the tops of the water mains plainly in sight, Because so much of the dirt was remo�red when this water system was installed, the roads are in death defying shape, One literally takes ones life into ones hands when attempting to cross the flood control channel . and then again when attempting to drive up these roads. 5,Because of so many of the homeowners being forced to vacate their homes because of these beforementioned conditions, the area is now attracting "transients" who just force their way into the empty houses and sleep there. In some cases they even live there for weeks and months before being discovered, Each evening one can see these "strangers" with sleeping bags walking arounct looking for a place to "spend the night", The people living in Indian Creek Villas are becoming afraid for their children and the people of Section #30 are afraid for themselves, 6. The lot abatement law of the City of Palm Desert is not being enforced at all, One example is that many areas of Section 30 are �ieginning to resemble a trash dump, Furniture, stoves, refrigerators and dumped there and just lefto 7, The fire department finds it almost impossible to get to the homeowners of Section #30 in times of emergency, 8, The law department faces the same problems as do the utility companies, 90 The city of Palm Desert is not granting building permits to enlarge or improve the existing dwellings because they claim that the soil will not perk properly for septic tanks, The lots in Section 30 are all 5 acres in size (there are a few of 2 acres). Surely with that lar�e a piece of property each potential homebuilder can locate a proper place on his lot where the soil will "perk" properly, l0a STEALING-THEIVERY has become PREV,�LENT in Section 30; When one leaves their home unoccupied for more than a couple of weeks, it is stripped ' of everything. This has happened to numerous owners; BREAKING AND ENTERING AND THEN ROBBING has become ROUTINE in Section 30, `� EXHIBIT B III 11. The property owners of Section 30, Palm Desert are unable to obtain any kind of conventional financing because the lending institutions say that Section 30 has no proper entrance off Hiway #74, �""' 12. The properties located on the West side of the CCVWC wash do not SEEM TO EXIST as for as the City of Pa1m Desert is concerned, WHY? ? This is some of the most prestigious and beautiful property in the City. 13o The property owners of Section 30, Palm Desert are told that the City has bigger projects to considero HOWEVER , we have been waiting in line now for years only to be turned back when it becomes our rightful turn. It seems i�r you are representing one of the larger proje�;ts you can be last in line and yet be heard FIR ST EVER Y TIME, After waiting for our turn SO MANY YEAR S are we once again to be pushed back to the end of the line ? WHY ? ? 14, The names attached hereto represent only a fraction of the owners in Section 30, Palm Desert< In order to expidite this letter for the City Council we did not have time to contact all involved, However, a more complete list will be furnished in the next weeks, We, the property owners in Section #30, City of Palm Desert are DESPERATE for action; We will have several owners present at your meeting on February 28 to answer personally any questions the City �"` may have, We feel we have the right to live in our homes in Palm Desert; at this point WE GAN'T„ 000000 i�... EXHIBIT B l. Mr, and Mrs. Byron Bently-residence at 47305 Hiway �74 Palm Desert (Lot �45, Section 30 mailing address: 523 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, Ca, � � 2, Mrs, Helen Westover-residence on Lot #51, Section 30, Palm Desert also Lot $44, Section 30, Palm Desert mailing: 4357 Victoria Park Dro , Los Angeles, Ca, 90019 3. Mr, & Mrso William H, Cree, Jr, -residence at 47-205 Southcliff Road, Palm Des, (Lot �42, Section 30 mailing: 500 West Devon P1, , Long Beach, Ca, 90807 4. Mr, & Mrs, Charles Martin-Lot �39, Section 30, Palm Desert mailing: Box 163 , LaQuinta, Ca, 92253 5. Mrs, Maurine Hendrickson-residence at 47405 Hiway #74, Palm Desert (Lot #50, Section 30) mailing: 823 North Edgemont Sta , Los Angeles, Ca, 90027 6. Mr, William Westover-Lot #43, Section 30, Palm Desert 1� mailing: 7900 Bakman Ave, , Sun Valley, C , 7o Mr. & Mrso John Hill-residence at 72350 Reid Road, Palm Desert (Lot #4, Section 30 mailing: Box 1521, Palm Desert � � 8, Mr, David Prest- Lot 54, Section 30, Palm Desert � mailing< 73441 Littlebend Trail, Palm Desert 92260 90 Mra & Mrs. Anthony C. Montenaro-residence at Lot #38, Palm Desert mail: 850 North Valley St< , Burbank, Ca, 91505 10, Mrs, Joseph Cuchaira-residence at Lot $41, Palm Desert, Section 30 mail: 820 North Evergreen St, , Burbank Ca, 91505 11, Mr, Del Gagnon- residence at 46211 Willow, Section 30, Palm Desert (Lot I4) mail: 73612 Hiway #�111, Palm Desert 12o Mrs, Paula Monroe-residence at 47655 Chapel Hill, Palm Desert (Lot #59 and Lot #5, Section 30) 13, Mr, and Mrs. Leroy Kirkpatrick-Lot # 27 Section 30, Palm Desert mail: 33801 Silver Lantern, Dana Point, Cao292629 14, Mr, Roger Kirkpatrick- Lot # 28 Section 30, Palm Desert maile 5244 Whitaker, Encino, Ca, 91316 � 15, Mrs. Jean M�Kibben-Lot # � Section 30, Palm Desert � 6020 Wright Terrace, Culver, Ca, 90230 16. Mr. Roger Woods-Lots #2_0, 21 & 26, Sec. 30, Palm Desert mail: 7�+271 Hiway 111, Palm Desert