Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0614 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - JUNE 14, 1978 1 : 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 1 : 04 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall . II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Kelly III . ROLL CALL Sheila Gilligan , Palm Desert City Clerk, swore in Commissioner Fleshman, who will fill the unexpired term of Charles Reading. Commis- sioner Fleshman was congratulated by Chairman Berkey. Present : Commissioner FLESHMAN Commissioner KELLY Commissioner KRYDER Commissioner SNYDER Chairman BERKEY Others Present : Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Clyde Beebe - Director of Public Works f IV. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN On a motion by Commissioner Kryder , seconded by Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Snyder was nominated to fill the unexpired term of Vice Chairman; carried 4-1 (AYES : Berkey, Fleshman, Kelly , Kryder ; ABSTAIN: Snyder) . MINU1E5 AMENDED V. APPROVAL OF4 A. Minutes of regular meeting of May 30, 1978 . Commissioners Fleshman and Kelly noted the following correc- tions to the minutes : Page Four , 4th paragraph, end of sentence, delete "more time" and add "staff input to resolve these problems . " Page Five, 6th paragraph, lst sentence , after "and that" add "we are not San Diego or Orange County and 2nd sentence, after "Portola Del Sol" add "the project has not been as successful" , delete "it is not coming out" ; and, at the end of the last sentence add "and the amenities as proposed are not sufficient . " Page Six, 4th paragraph, lst sentence , "Luthern" should be spelled "Lutheran" . Page Seven , 3rd paragraph from the bottom, last sentence , "waivered" should be spelled "waived" ; 2nd paragraph from the bottom, 2nd sentence, "Fairhaven" should be "Fairway" . Page Nine , lst paragraph, 3rd sentence , "wil" should be spelled "will" ; 4th paragraph add "original" before "sub- division" ; 2nd paragraph from the bottom, delete "location of the tennis courts and how they are lighted" and add in its place "issue of grading in relationship to the wall" . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Two V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Cont. ) On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the minutes were approved as corrected; carried unanimously (5-0) . VI . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams noted that the letter that the Commission had received in their packet from Hope Lutheran Church dealt with their appealing to the City Council regarding one condition of ap- proval with regard to the curbs and gutters. Commissioner Snyder asked that it be emphasized that curbs and gutters are a standard requirement not a special condition. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Berkey explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present . A. Continued Case No. C/Z O1-78 , INITIATED BY 'PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Request for approval of a Planning Commission initiated Change of Zone for pre-zoning approximately 1 , 047 acres from ' S ' Study to P.C. (2) (U.A. ) , .R-2 8, 000( 8) (U.A. ) , R-1 . 12, 000 (U.A. ) , PR-5 (U.A. ) , PR-4 (U.S . ) , O. S . (U.A . ) , PR-3 (U.A. ) , PR-10 (U.A. ) or any other zone deemed ap- propriate on property generally located between Country Club Drive and the Whitewater Channel and between Mon- terey Road and Cook Street . Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report and briefly discussed the proposed Sand Dune Park and the various alternatives determined by the Staff . He noted that the Staff suggested that the park be reduced by 30 acres on the west side and design the park in a wind direction that will preserve the park. He then suggested that the area deleted be zoned PR-5 if the Commission chose this alternative. Mr. Williams noted that a major General Plan Amendment would be needed if the O. S . designation were dropped entirely. Further , it was pointed out that the school district indicates that there will be a need for another elementary school site in the area south of Country Club and east of Cook Street , due to the growth in the area in question and in La Quinta. Mr. Williams noted letters received regarding blowsand, and the open space. In conclusion , Mr . Williams stated that the Staff recommended approval and that the changes should be made on the map attached to the Resolution. Chairman Berkey asked for further justification with regard to the R-2 8, 000 rather than R-1 10, 000 zone. Mr. Williams noted that staff felt with the buffer between the residential and commercial and the layout of the tract that the R-2 8, 000 would be appropriate. Some discussion followed with regard to the difference in setbacks in an R-1 and R-2 zone and whether the Commission would be setting a precedent in the area with small lots as proposed. Mr. Williams noted that the density would be the same as in a PR-5 and that this proposal would be most compatible with the adjoining commercial . He further noted that the Staff did not feel that an area adjacent to commercial is appropriate for large lot residential . Commissioner Kelly asked what kind of a committment the school district had given , did they mention a date? - she noted that the letter appears meaningless . Commissioner Snyder stated that he believes R-2 8, 000 would be a terrible mistake and that there is no justification for this zoning. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Three VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Continued Case No. C/Z 01-78 (Cont. ) Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. MIKE GALLAGHER, representing McBail Co. , addressed the Commission, noting that the plan is consistent with the General Plan; the lots will average over 9, 000 sq. ft . ; 1 . 88 acre recreation site will be provided; the plan comes close to a planned unit development; and, he believes the density is appropriate and doesn ' t know if it will set a precedent . Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . RICHARD ROMER, representing Ted Weiner , property owner, stated that Mr. Weiner is satisfied with the proposed pre-zoning and that if the Commission decides not to act today and pre-zone the entire area, that Mr. Weiner would like to break off his parcel and have the Commission pre-zone his separately so that he can get on with developing it . F. X. MCDONALD, property owner, stated that the death of the Sand Dunes is inevitable ; he objects to the O. S. designation; and, he requested a PR-7 zoning on his property due to its small size ; he wants the same density as Portola Country Club. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Fleshman and Commissioner Kryder asked about the shape of the 30 acres that might be zoned O. S . and if the wind direction would replenish the sand dunes. Mr. Williams noted that it would and noted the shape on the exhibited map. Commissioner Snyder asked about the shape being a triangle across Mr . McDonald ' s property and how long would the wind patterns prevail as they are? Mr . Williams stated that he is speaking about a 5-10 year period and that Staff believes the proposal would be appropriate as suggested by Commissioner Fleshman and Chairman Berkey. Commissioner Kelly stated her opposition to the R-2 8, 000 zoning and noted her concern with the traffic in the area. Some discussion followed regarding the zoning and that there would be 141 units permitted under PR-5 . Chairman Berkey reopened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the various issues discussed. Mr. Gallagher stated that the density would increase under the PR-5 and the development would lose some of its amenities. Commissioner Snyder noted that the amenities would still be required. Commissioner Fleshman stated that lot sizes have nothing to do with the quality of the neighborhood. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman , seconded by Commissioner Kryder to accept the Staff ' s recommendations and modify the O. S . and to change the McDonald piece to PR-5 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 367; carried 3-2 (AYES : Fleshman, Berkey, Kryder ; NOES : Kelly, Snyder) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Four VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) B. Continued Case No. GPA 02-78, Joint Hearing with Parks and Recreation Commission, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant . Consideration of a proposed General Plan Amendment which would incorporate the proposed Parks and Re- creation Element into the adopted Palm Desert General Plan . Mr. Williams reviewed the staff report and noted that Staff recommended two changes to the element . First the plan should be revised to conform with the pre-zoning approved in the previous case with regard to the Sand Dune Park. Second, the 50' wide pedes- trian way on Shadow Mountain should be deleted. Commissioner Snyder asked what the status was of the Ironwood park. Mr. Williams stated that the deeds would be presented to the City Council at their meeting of July 13th. Commissioner Fleshman asked about the Civic Center park site_ Mr . Williams noted that the site is out of scale on the map but that it is a large site. The park site would be 6 to 10 acres in conjunction with a 6 to 15 acre civic center. Commissioner Fleshman suggested that the road near the sand dune should be changed. Chairman Berkey asked if any of the Parks and Recreation Com- missioners had any comments at this time. They had none. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open at this time and asked if anyone wished to speak. Being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission . Commissioner Snyder complimented the Parks and Recreation Commission and moved that the Commission adopt the General Plan Amendment to incorporate the proposed Parks and Recreation Element into the adopted Palm Desert General Plan by Planning Commission Resolution No . 368, seconded by Commissioner Kelly; carried unanimously (5-0) . C. Continued Case Nos . DP 03-78 and 80C - MCBAIL COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review to provide for a district commercial shopping center to be located on approxi- mately 11 . 71 acres at the southeast corner of Country Club and Monterey Avenue . Mr. Williams reviewed the cases and noted a revised map . He then suggested an additional Design Review Board condition, which would be : Design Review Board Condition No . 5 - Applicant shall submit section details of street frontages and south perimeter of the commercial area to the Design Review Board prior to submittal of final construction drawings. In addition , the openings on Country Club shall be limited to one . Commissioner Fleshman noted that he had several questions that were still unanswered with regard to the proposed project . He asked if there will be truck wells for the delivery trucks; will the financial building have drive-up windows; and, also how would the traffic flow. Chairman Berkey noted that the Commission would only be approving a very general concept . Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Five VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont. ) C. Case Nos. DP 03-78 and 80C (Cont . ) MIKE GALLAGHER, noted that he is only seeking conceptual approval at this time and that he has shown the basic grading. Further , he noted that the commercial area would be at the same grade as Country Club. He noted his ob- jection to Special Condition No . 4, stating that he would like the sign program left up to the discretion of the Design Review Board. Mr . Williams suggested a new Special Condition No. 4 to read : Signs as shown are not approved. A complete Sign Program shall be submitted to the Design Review Board as part of the preliminary plans . Commissioner Fleshman indicated that he would like the next set of drawings to be in a larger scale . Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . Being none , he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission . Commissioner Fleshman asked that the words "in concept only" be added at the end of the Resolution . Commissioner Snyder asked if Mr . Williams would be answering the City of Rancho Mirage ' s letter . Mr . Williams noted he would be . On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman , seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission approved the Cases with the noted additions, by Planning Commission Resolution No . 369 ; carried unanimously (5-0) . D. Continued Case No. TT 11791 - MCBAIL COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 101 single-family residential lots and 3 lots to provide for a district commercial center, a common recreation area and open space from a 40 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue . Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report and showed the Commission renderings of the proposed units . He noted that the subdivision con- tains pedestrian access to the commercial development . Commissioner Snyder asked 'now many 2 story units there would be? Mr . Gallagher noted that there would be 45 and in answer to a question by Commissioner Kryder as to whether they would be spread out, he stated that they would be . Commissioner Kryder asked if the Design Review Board had had any comments on the pool and jacuzzi area. He noted that there would be children in the area and perhaps the applicant should consider an area for children in the major pool area or a wading pool in the recreation center area. Commissioner Kelly asked if there would be a fence. Mr. Williams noted that it is mandatory. Commissioner Fleshman and Commissioner Kelly noted their objec- tion to the 2 story units and asked if the applicant had anything to say on this issue . Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant would like to speak at this time . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Six VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) D. Case No . TT 11791 (Cont . ) MIKE GALLAGHER, stated that 2 story units are very popular but there are alternatives available . He also noted that he agreed with the pool area idea. Commissioner Fleshman stated that there are very few 2- story homes in the community and he wondered if the applicant had considered the heat loss and the cooling efficiency in 2-story homes. Chairman Berkey noted that it ',is the desire of the community to have single-story homes rather than 2-story . Commissioner Fleshman asked about the type of roofing tile to be used. Mr. Gallagher noted it would be barrel tile . Commissioner Kryder asked about the widths of the proposed streets and if it would be sufficient . He also noted that a Special Condition should require that the traffic signal proposed be opera- tive prior to the completion of the project . Commissioner Kelly asked what the schedule was for the signal and if anyone else was contributing to its cost . Mr. Beebe stated that it is 5th on the list of signals proposed and that it would probably not be operative for 2 to 3 years, but perhaps left turn pockets would be helpful prior to the signal being put in . He also noted that there was no one else contributing at this time. Commissioner Kryder again noted his objection to approving the project without a condition mandating traffic control improvements being completed prior to the completion of the project . Mr. Beebe suggested a Special Con- dition No. 13 which would read: Subject to approval of the Director of Public Works, adequate traffic safety provisions shall be made and methods of improving traffic circulation in the vicinity shall be provided at the intersection of Monterey and Country Club. Commissioner Fleshman questioned the perimeter wall ' s design . Mr. Williams noted that it would be slumpstone with a meandering bikepath and 8 feet of landscaping. Commissioner Fleshman stated that the wall on Monterey should be other than straight . Some dis- cussion followed with regard to the southern and eastern wall and whether it should meander; what type of landscaping it would have and how much; why is there windbreak protection on the south. Chairman Berkey noted that the applicant does have flexibility to place a fence on the south and east side rather than a wall . Mr . Williams noted that this was correct. Mr. Gallagher noted that he would like to have some flexibility. Mr. Beebe noted that the sidewalk must remain in the public right-of-way. 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 . Commissioner Fleshman stated that he still had questions regarding the fencing on the south and east sides. Mr . Williams noted that the Design Review Board will approve the blow sand pro- tection measures. Commissioner Fleshman suggested a change to Condition No. 5 adding "conforming to Exhibit A, sheet 4 of the sub- mitted plans" and replace "concrete" with "decorative" . On Condition No. 10, delete the last two lines. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Seven VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) D. Case No. TT 11791 (Cont . ) The Commission discussed the 2-story issue and their disagree- ment with the need for 2-story homes. Mr . Williams suggested a new Condition No. 14 - Delete plan 2116 ; and an addition to Condition No. 3(b) requiring aisingle-story limitation. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman , seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the Commission approved Case No. TT 11791 with the noted additions and corrections to the conditions by Planning Commission Resolution No. 370; carried unanimously (5-0) . THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 3:05 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENEDED AT 3:10 P.M. E . CASE NO. GPA 01-78, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a proposed Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Palm Desert which would reduce the status of a portion of Portola Avenue from Major Highway to Local Street . Commissioner Fleshman abstained from the discussion and left the room due to a possible conflict as he has in the past worked with Mr. Ballew. Mr . Williams reviewed the Staff Report and noted that the pro- posed concept would allow for the dividing up of Ironwood (local ) traffic from through traffic. The proposal would also discourage the use of Portola as a by-pass to Highway 74. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposal . JOHN BALLEW, addressed the Commission and noted that Mesa View would better serve the area and that Ironwood has been looking at the circulation system and Portola' s role for some time. He noted that an indepth study was put into the location of the park and the proposed fire station in addition to circulation and traffic. He also noted that this alternative will better serve the City and that most of the area residents seem in agreement . SHIRLEY SPORK, 73010 Somera Drive, indicated her concern with the added traffic that would be dumped onto Alamo and that she would like the Planning Commission to con- sider improving Chia Drive as an additional access road to Portola. Mr. Williams noted that the proposed General Plan Amendment would have the potential of reducing the amount of traffic on Alamo and he also noted that Chia is proposed to be extended. LARRY SPICER, Silver Spur Assoc. , mentioned that the Silver Spur Ranchers Assoc. had indicated to him that they are in favor of the proposal . Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission approved the proposed Amendment to the Circula- tion Element of the General Plan by Planning Commission Resolution No. 371 ; carried (4-1 ) (AYES : Berkey, Kelly, Kryder, Snyder ; ABSTAIN : Fleshman) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Eight VIII . OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Regional Development Policies developed by CVAG. Mr . Williams noted that the Commissioners might want to attend the June 21, Riverside County Planning Commission meeting in Indio at which time the proposed Regional Development Policies developed by CVAG would be discussed. Commissioner Snyder noted his concern with CVAG' s use of the words "jointly prepared" and "jointly developed" and asked if the Staff had been asked for input into these items. Mr. Williams noted that they had not . Commissioner Fleshman noted that the County should stay out of the planning business. Further , he noted that the City ' s design stan- dards exceed those of any other local jurisdiction or the County . Also he stated that Palm Desert should exercise control over develop- ment of all land within the sphere of influence areas. Chairman Berkey noted that the County could amend its Zoning Ordinance to relate to city zoning in areas where city ' s have pre- zoned territory. Commissioner Snyder asked how do we protect our Sphere of In- fluence? Commissioner Kryder stated that it appears to be a blatant effort on the part of the County to control the City' s growth. The Commission then agreed to revise the policies paragraph Iwo by paragraph as noted on Exhibit A, attached hereto. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Snyder , the Commission directed Mr. Williams to deliver in writing and in person the comments of the Commission to the County at their next meeting; carried unanimously (5-0) . X. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of June 6, 1978. Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case Nos. 121MF, 122MF, 226SA, 129MF , 130MF, and 82C and noted the Design Review Board ' s concerns with each case. On a motion by Commissioner Snyder , seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the Commission approved the actions of the Design Review Board by Planning Commission Resolution No. 372 ; carried unanimously (5-0) . XI . DISCUSSION ITEMS A. U. S. Army Corp of Engineers Preliminary Evaluation of Flood and Associated Problems of the Whitewater River Basin. Mr. Williams assured the Commission that the City would have a representative, most likely Mr. Beebe, at the meeting with the Corps. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Nine XII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XIII . COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams noted that the regularly scheduled meeting in July would be July 5, due to the holiday on July 4. He also reminded the Commission of the bus tour on Friday, June 16, 1978. B. City Attorney - Not present . C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Kelly asked that a letter be sent to Roger Harlow of the school district regarding his previous comments with regard to the school needs in the area, specifically the middle school capacity and the need for a high school in Palm Desert . She asked that Mr . Harlow be asked to be more specific about the needs of the district and to give the City a timetable . Commissioner Snyder noted that he is more and more impres- sed with the Staff after seeing other staffs and agencies at meetings and conferences. XIX. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Snyder , seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the meeting was adjourned at 4 :23 p.m. ; carried unanimously ( 5-0) . PA A. WIL IAMS, Secretary ATTEST : GEOR E airman rjc/ks Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Ten EXHIBIT A Proposed Policies PROPOSED CVAG DEVELOPMENT POLICIES MW 1. Within Spheres-Of-Influence, General Plans should be jointly prepared by the City and the County and approved by both Legislative Bodies. Growth policies, planning procedures, zoning designations and permitted uses should be inven- toried, reviewed, appropriately amended, mutually adopted and consistently implemented. 2. Within Spheres-Of-Influence, Development Standards should be equal to or exceed those required by the City. Joint City/County Development Standards should be established to insure consistency between Citv and County Standards for buildings, streets, architectural review and public facilities. 3. Growth should be regulated within public service capacities. The timing of urban development should be managed to insure the availability for public facilities and services as needed to support land developments. 4. Cities and the County should jointly develop and adopt population forecasts. These forecasts should be prepared for a ten-year period, be updated annually and be tied to a Regional Environmental Assessment. 5. General Plans and the issuance of building permits should be related to the population forecasts. to' 6. General Plans jointly prepared by the Cities and the County for Sphere-Of- Influence areas should be reviewed by LAFCO and used as the foundation for LAFCO decision making. 7. The Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance should be amended to distinguish between rural and Sphere-Of-Influence urban areas and establish different improvement schedules for each. In addition to the prescribed improvement schedules adopted by the County for land and subdivisions, improvement schedules listed should be sensitive to the location of the proposed development. 8. Cities and the County should identify agricultural lands and define the ex- tent to which urban expansion may take place without adversely affecting agricultural productivity. 9. New development should be directed to land within or contiguous to existing urban areas. 10. Special districts should provide local governments with five-year Capital Improvement Plans for review and information. 11. An ultimate interface between rural and urban areas should be defined. Urban area boundaries would become ultimate growth limits; beyond the perimeter, land would be designated for rural uses only. 12. Non-developable land should be carefully delineated; the objective to exclude environmentally sensitive lands and hazardous areas from development con- sideration, while growth is directed to suitable areas. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1978 Page Eleven EXHIBIT A Revised Policies PROPOSED CVAG DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 1. Within Spheres-Of-Influence, General Plans should be prepared by the City having jurisdiction approved by both Legislative Bodies. Growth policies, planning procedures, zoning designations and permitted uses should be inven- toried, reviewed, appropriately amended, mutually adopted and consistently implemented. 2. Within Spheres-Of-Influence, Development Standards should be adopted to equal or exceed those required by the City. 3. Growth should be regulated within public service capacities. The timing of urban development should be managed by the City having jurisdiction to insure the availability for public facilities and services as needed to support land developments. 4. General Plans and the issuance of building permits shall be related to the availability of Public Facilities and Services. 5. General Plans prepared by the Cities and for Sphere-Of-Influence areas should be reviewed by LAFCO and used as the foundation for LAFCO decision making. 6. The Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance should be amended to distinguish between rural and Sphere-Of-Influence urban areas and establish different improvement schedules for each. In addition to the prescribed improvement schedules adopted by the County for land and subdivisions, improvement schedules listed should be sensitive to the location of the proposed development. 7. Cities and the County should identify agricultural lands. 8. Special districts should provide local governments with five-year Capital Improvement Plans for review and information. 9. An ultimate interface between rural and urban areas should be defined. Urban area boundaries shall' be established by the responsible cities and reviewed annually. 10. Non-developable land should be carefully delineated; the objective to exclude environmentally sensitive lands and hazardous areas from development consi- deration, while growth is directed to suitable areas. (As proposed by the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission)