Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1003 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 3 , 1978 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 Kelly at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall . II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Snyder III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Fleshman Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Snyder Chairman Kelly Others Present : Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Murrel Crump - Principal Planner Ralph Cipriani- Associate Planner Clyde Beebe - Director of Public Works Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. The minutes were held over until the meeting of October 18 , 1978. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Kelly announced that prior to this meeting, the Com- mission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifing the staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. Chairman Kelly then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present . A. Continued Case Nos. CUP 07-77, CUP 07-77(EIR) and 140MF ROBERT RICCIARDI , Applicant Mr. Williams noted a letter from Mr . Ricciardi requesting that the cases be continued to the October 31st meeting. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner Snyder , the cases were continued to the October 31 , 1973 , meeting; carried unanimously (5-0) . B. Case No. TT 13581 , CHACAHUALA LTD. , Applicant w Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create a 118-lot condominium subdivision to provide for 117 re- sidential lots and one lot for common purposes on approxi- mately 39 acres within the PR-3 zone situated south of Homestead, between Alamo and Arrow Trail . Mr. Williams reviewed the staff report and noted the differences 'between the subdivision and the development plan and also stated that of 54 might be in violation of City Ordinances. He then noted the difference in the channel width on the Tract Map and the Development Plan. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Two VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) B. Case No. TT 13581 (Cont . ) There was some discussion about the location of the lots and the width of the swale between the lots.& the location of Lot 58 . Mr . Housley, project engineer , noted that the lots will be adjusted to be in conformance with the Ordinance. Mr. Williams reviewed the Conditions of Approval and noted the addition of Special Condition No. 7 - All lots shall be adjusted and relocated to conform to the approved Development Plan labeled Exhibit A, Case No. 126MF dated August 31 , 1978 ; and, Standard Condi- tion No. 18 - Applicant shall contribute to the Traffic .Signalization Fund in an amount of $50 per unit . Mr . Williams then noted a letter of protest received from Mr. Scheu. Chairman Kelly noted her agreement with Standard Condition No . 18 as this was the concern of the residents when the previous related case was reviewed. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open asked if the applicant would like to speak at this time. I . HAROLD HOUSLEY, Project Engineer, referred to Special Condition No. 2 noting that the water dis- trict does not want an easement ; and, Special Condition No. 6, he noted the various phases of the project . There was a short discussion on Special Condition No. 2 and the need for a connection for a future water line for either Ironwood or the proposed park. Mr . Housley noted that there was no objection to granting the City an easement but he objected to granting one to Ironwood. Commissioner Fleshman asked Mr. Beebe if the City would need an easement or right to go on the property. Mr . Beebe stated that the City should have a right of entry. Mr . Beebe also asked if the improvement of Mesa View and Alamo would be a part of Phase I . It was noted on Special Conditions No. 3 and 5 that this would be part of Phase I . Also Special Condition No. 2 was changed to read - A drainage easement to the City shall be placed on the proposed swale. Chairman Kelly asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project . JOHN MCMANN, Silver Spur, spoke in opposition to the project . One of his concerns was the length of time till the completion of the project . It was noted that the completion date would be in compliance with the Conditions of Approval. He also noted his concern with flood control . Commissioner Snyder noted that the flood control was under the jurisdiction of the C.V.W. C.D. and that the City is aware of the problem and doing everything it can. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner $nyder , the Commission approved the case by Planning Commission Resolu- tion No. 406 with the noted cnanges and additions to the Conditions of Approval ; carried unanimously (5-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Three VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont. ) Chairman Kelly excused herself from the case and left the room. C. Case No. C/Z 10-78, BENNETT AND BARBIER, Applicants Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 12, 000 to R-2 on approximately 1 . 5 acres south of Park View Drive, between Fairhaven and San Juan Drive. Mr. Crump reviewed the staff report and noted the staff recom- mendation of denial and the reasons for this recommendation. He then reviewed the applicants request for the Change of Zone and noted cor- respondence received the applicants' lawyer . Commissioner Kryder asked if triplexes were allowed in this zoning and what zoning would be required for duplexes. Mr . Crump stated that triplexes are allowed and that an R-2 6, 000 zoning would be neces- sary for duplexes. Vice-Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant would like to speak at this time. CAL MCINTOSH, Attorney representing the applicant , stated that he disagreed with the staffs reasons for denial . He noted that there is a block wall along the back of the property, he sees no reason for cul-de-sacing the street noted as there is better circulation as it is now, and there is a need for rental property in the area. Commissioner Kryder noted that the applicant had made some good points and asked if he would consider single-story duplexes with a zoning of R-2, 6, 000. Vice-Chairman Snyder asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed Change of Zone . Being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. There was some discussion regarding assembling the lots into one parcel ; if the request is in conformance with the General Plan; considering the COD Area Specific Plan and its findings with regard to zoning; the possibility of duplexes; the possibility of combining the lots; if R-2-6, 000 could be done lot by lot and if R-2-7 could be combined. Commissioner Berkey noted his opposition to the project as the traffic is already heavy in the area. It was suggested that the applicant consider R-2-7 , 000 S.P. Mr . McIntosh stated that he had not had time to consider this zoning but if this is the best the applicant can get they will take it . Commissioner Berkey noted that this zoning gives many alterna- tives for different things. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission approved a Change of Zone from R-1 12 , 000 to R-2-7, 000 S.P. by Planning Commission Resolution No. 407 ; carried (4-0-1 ) (AYES : Berkey, Fleshman, Snyder, Kryder; ABSTAIN: Kelly) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Four VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) D. Case Nos. DP 15-78, 93C, and VAR 05-78, WILLIAM BURNETT, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review for a Planned Commercial Development and a related parking Variance to re- duce the number of parking spaces from 898 to 834 on approximately 15. 6 acres within the P.C. (3) , S .P. zone at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and El Paseo. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the cases and noted Conditions of, Approval and the concerns of the Design Review Board. Chairman Kelly asked why one of the Board members voted no on the Case. Mr . Williams stated that the member had asked that the project tie into the existing pro- ject more effectively to make it look more intimate. Chairman Kelly asked if this was a variance or an adjustment on the parking. Mr . Williams noted that it is a form of a variance. Mr . Cirpriani reviwed the rest of the staff report and noted that the parking falls under joint use and that the applicant had lost 38 spaces by angling the parking spaces as required by the Design Review Board. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. WILLIAM BURNETT, applicant , addressed the Commission and asked to have Standard Condition No. 11 explained. Mr. Beebe stated that this is a requirement in the Ordinance and the Ordinance requires $1500 per gross acre. Mr . Burnett also asked to have Special Condition No. 2 explained. Mr . Beebe stated that the signal for this location would cost about $120, 000 and it would be a 3 way intersection and $40, 000 is one third the cost . Mr. Burnett stated that he did not object to the fee but felt that it should not be required until the signal light is installed. There was some discussion about the length of time for the signal to be installed and when the applicant is required to give the funds to the City. It was noted that it took 18 months to put in the signal at Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . Chairman Kelly asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . Being none, she de- clared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Fleshman noted his concern with the parking; the need for some design alternatives; traffic circulation; an anal- ysis of the traffic flow at exits, entrances, etc. ; and, the parking along El Paseo and location of buildings. Chairman Kelly noted her concern for the use of a parking variance and parking in general. REVIA ADAMS, resident of Sandpiper, asked if there would be any time restrictions for loading and un- loading the delivery trucks. Mr. Williams noted that there is not any specific ordinance and it would be hard to enforce if there was one. Commissioner Snyder stated that Ms. Adams could go before the City Council with this issue. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Five VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) D. Case Nos. DP 15-78 , 93C, and VAR 05-78 (Cont . ) Commissioner Fleshman noted that he liked the cluster effect but that he was still not happy with the traffic circulation, the existing traffic should be considered. He noted his concern for the need of the traffic signal and whether the City would be liable for any accidents at this intersection. Commissioner Fleshman stated %now that he was not happy with the location of the back of the market on El Paseo. He also felt that there are other alternatives possible. Commissioner Berkey noted that the Conditions could be changed to reflect a restudy of the traffic circulation and that with good landscaping the project would be good. Commissioner Snyder stated that this is a good design for the area and for Sandpiper and he hoped that the applicant would take the suggestions of the Commission into consideration. Commissioner Kryder stated that if the project were treated pro- perly it could be attractive and the applicant has done a good job. Also, the Commission should take the applicant at his word that he has tried everything to make this a fine and workable project . Chairman Kelly stated that she would like to have the project sent back to the Design Review Board and she would like a better design and more study done on the traffic ciruclation pattern. She also noted that the proposed commercial area will add to the traffic problem that already exists. There was some more discussion on the traffic signal and how long it would take to get it installed. Mr. Beebe stated that the State tow waits until the traffic is generated before considering installing a a traffic signal and the State makes the decisions, nobody else. Mr . Burnett stated again that they have done the best design possible and have gone to great lengths to comply with the City require- ments. He stated that he would like to know what the problem is and just what the Commission wants. Commissioner Fleshman stated that the Design Review Boards ' comments on circulation and the loading area for the market and his suggestion to explore other alternatives for the location of the build- ings which might create better ciruclation are his main concern. He also suggested that the market be moved and get a common loading area. Commissioner Berkey stated that the project should not be delayed until November but perhaps it could be continued until the October 31st meeting. Mr . Burnett rebutted that the first plan submitted had exceeded the parking requirements by 100 spaces and the parking had been reworked on 5 different plot plans. The City wants this project to integrate and tie-in with the existing phase and yet this pro- ject is being penalized for the mistakes of the pre- vious phase with regard to parking. He also noted that the market is only 22 ft . high and that the loading dock will be completely enclosed. Mr . Bur- nett stated that without reservation any other place- ment of the market would not be acceptable to the applicant . This is the best plan for all concerned . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Six VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) D . Case Nos. DP 15-78 , 93C, and VAR 05-78 (Cont . ) Commissioner Berkey suggested that a special meeting be scheduled between staff and the Commission to dicuss the issues A of this project . Commissioner Kryder suggested that the Commis- sion have an hour study session prior to the meeting to be held on October 5, 1978 , to discuss these cases. Commissioner Snyder agreed. The applicant agreed with this and stated that he would like to be at the study session to explain some of the issues in- volved a little more thoroughly. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing reopened and on a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman the cases were continued to October 5, 1978 ; carried unanimously (5-0) . THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 10:00 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 10:10 P.M. Chairman Kelly excused herself from the next case . E. Case Nos. C/Z 11-78, DP 14-78, PM 13406 and 148MF, G. MARZICOLA & D. K. KAVANAUGH, Applicants The property owner, G. Marzicola, has control of approxi- mately 158 .4 gross acres generally located on the east side of Cook Street , northerly of Merle Drive. The pro- posal in this series of related applications seeks to gain preannexation zoning consisting of two Planned Re- sidential densities (PR-5 and PR-7) , and Service In- dustrial . The site is proposed to be divided into re- sidential and industrial parcels. The initial develop- ment of the site is being carried forward by D . K. Kava- naugh (applicant) on the largest of the two residential parcels created. The applications submitted are as fol- lows : C/Z 11-78 - A Change of Zone from ' S ' Study to PR-5(U.A. ) 80 acres; PR-7(U.A. ) , 35. 2 acres; and, S . I . (U.A. ) 43 . 2 acres; DP 14-78 - A Planned Residential Development encompassing a total of 115. 2 acres (80 acres proposed for initial development ) , and a Service Industrial District of 43 . 2 acres. Preliminary design details have only been submitted for the 80 acre PR-5 development ; PM 13406 - A Parcel Map to create four parcels. Two re- sidential parcels at 35. 2 acres and 80 acres; and, two service industrial parcels at 34. 7 acres and 8 . 5 acres; and, 148MF - Preliminary Design Review to provide for 381 single-family detached units and related re- creational amenities on an 80 acre portion of the subject property located in the proposed PR-5 zone . Mr. Crump reviewed the Staff Report and noted the Staff ' s re- commendation of PR-5, S. P. on the total 115 residential acres and their reasons. He then reviewed the Conditions of Approval . Mr . Williams noted that there had been a request for the Change of Zone on Parcel One, but that request had been withdrawn . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Seven VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) E. Case Nos. C/Z 11-78 , DP 14-78, PM 13406 and 148MF (Cont . ) Vice-Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. DON KAVANAUGH, applicant , noted that there will be a storage lot that will hold 12-30 recreational vehicles; there will be staggered setbacks; and, he noted that he had met with the Fire Marshal and they have complied with his concerns. E. GEORGE MARZICOLA, applicant , noted reasons for requesting PR-7 zoning as being the need for a buffer between the road and the single-family area. Vice-Chairman Snyder asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . CHARLES GIBBS, owner of 120 acres west of the proposed project , noted that he is in favor of annexation, and does not oppose the PR request but he does oppose the S . I . designation. He stated that half of the S. I . should have to be O. S. as he was required on his project . Mr. Williams noted that the Park and Recreation Master Plan had recently been updated and that there is no need for a park in this area. He also noted that S. I . is the zoning on the east side of Cook Street and that this designation allows offices as well as industrial . Vice-Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder had no comment . Commissioner Berkey stated that the request is not in accordance with the General Plan and that he does not agree with the request for an increase in density. The City needs to take a fresh look at the General Plan. There was some discussion about increasing the density or not increasing the density in this area. Vice-Chairman Snyder and Commissioner Kryder both noted that they felt that a decision should not be made at this time until the joint meeting with the City Council and this area has been discussed more fully. Commissioner Fleshman noted that this puts the staff in a bad position as they tell the applicant what is recommended in the General Plan and then the Commission feels otherwise. Commissioner Kryder asked if the staff felt this zoning would be in conflict with the plans for the future of this area. Mr . Williams stated that a lower density was talked about for the future of the ..► north area. Commissioner Fleshman stated that the density range would pro- bably be functional and he finds no objection to the Parcel Map and the Development Plan concept but he is concerned with the amount of amenities proposed. Mr . Kavanaugh stated that they would do anything the staff and Commission recommends. Mr . Williams noted that the Design Review Board conditions as noted in the minutes of their meeting should be added to the Special Conditions of Approval to become Nos. 8 , 9, 10, & 11 . Also Special Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Eight VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) E. Case Nos. C/Z 11-78, DP 14-78 , PM 13406 and 148MF (Cont . ) Condition No. 12 would be added to read : Prior to preparation of construction drawings, the applicant shall provide expanded recrea- tional amenities, as expressed in detailed plans for each specific area. The additional recreational amenities shall relate specifical- ly to the proposed orientation of the units said areas will serve. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder , the Commission approved the Change of Zone in modified form from ' S' to PR-5(U.A. ) (approximately 115. 2 acres) and S . I . , S .P. (U.A. ) (approximately 43 . 2 acres) , a Development Plan with a maximum of 381 dwelling units and the Tentative Parcel Map creating 4 parcels and the Preliminary Design Review of the initial 80 acre residential development all subject to compliance with conditions including the noted addition of Special Conditions No. 8 through 12, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 408 ; carried (4-0-1) AYES : Berkey, Flesh- man, Kryder, Snyder ; ABSTAIN: Kelly. F. Case No. CUP 11-78, ROMITTI ' S WINE CELLAR, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow fine wine sales, imported cheeses and a deli sandwich bar within the C-1, S.P. zone at the northeast corner of E1 Paseo and Larkspur Lane and a related Variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from 14 spaces required by the Municipal Code to 6 spaces. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the case and noted the parking Variance request could be approved due to the joint use parking section. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. NANCY RICKERT, partner in the project , noted her agreement with the Staff ' s recommendations. Chairman Kelly asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project . BILL HOBBS, noted his approval of the project . CHARLES RILEY, leasing agent , stated that all the local tenants are in favor of the project . Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Chairman Kelly asked that a condition be added that would have the Staff check back at a later time to see if the parking situation has become a problem, so that if there is a problem the Commission would have the option to reconsider . On a motion by Commissioner Snyder , seconded by Commissioner Berkey, the Commission approved the case with the addition of Condi- tion No. 5 which will read : On an annual basis at the first Planning Commission meeting of October, the Staff shall report to the Planning Commission the level of compliance of said use to this approval and the description of the proposed use as specified by the applicant in their application; by Planning Commission Resolution No. 409; carried unanimously (5-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Nine VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) Commissioner Fleshman excused himself from the next case and left the room. G. Case No. PM 13559, PDR ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Parcel Map to divide an 8 acre parcel within the P.C. (4) , S .P. zone into %MW three parcels, the site being located north of Avenue 44 , between Painters Path and Highway 111 . Mr. Crump reviewed the case and noted the Conditions of Approval and he also stated that the project will be completed in one phase. Commissioner Kryder asked if the project would have the meandering bike path join into something. Mr . Williams stated that it will tie in with the bike bath proposed for Highway 111 and it will tie into the one in Rancho Mirage. Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant would like to speak at this time. The applicant was not present . Chairman Kelly asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project . Being none, she declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder , the Commission approved the case by Planning Commission Resolu- tion No. 410; carried (4-0-1) AYES : Berkey, Kelly, Kryder , Snyder ; ABSTAIN: Fleshman. H. Case No. PM 13433 , CHARLES GIBBS, Applicant . tr.r Mr. Williams noted a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to October 18 , 1978 . On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner Snyder , the Commission continued the case until October 18 , 1978 ; carried (4-0-1) AYES : Fleshman, Kelly, Kryder, Snyder ; ABSTAIN: Berkey. VII . OLD BUSINESS Mr . Williams noted that the Commission would be discussing the Change of Zone and Development Plan request by Lewis Homes of California at their meeting of October 18 , as requested by the City Council . VIII . NEW BUSINESS - None IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Consideration of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of September 26, 1978, and September 12 , tow 1978 . Mr . Cipriani reviewed the cases: Case No. 152MF - Commissioner Snyder stated that he was against any two-story residential homes; Case No. 94C - the applicant asked that the condition regarding the re- moval of the existing sign be deleted since the Sign Ordinance is in litigation at this time; Case No. 95C - question on the trash enclo- sure; Case No. 96C - Commission wanted more detail and cross sections; and, Case No. 146MF - the need for a decorative masonry wall to buffer the street noise was discussed. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Ten IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Cont . ) After some discussion on the above mentioned issues of concern, the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Snyder , seconded by Commissioner Fleshman did the following by Planning Commission Resol- ution No. 411 : 1 . Approved Case No. 94C with the stated conditions; 2. Case No. 95C is referred back to the Design Review Board to consider : a) the expansion of the exterior modification all around the building including Sprouse Reitz, jewelers, restaurant , appliance stare on the front , side and rear; b) The upgrading of landscaping in the parking lot between the Mobil station and the area to be re- modeled; 3 . Case No. 96C is referred back to the Design Review Board to consider full cross sections (2 minimum) north to south through the proposed building from El Paseo to the existing building to be supplied by the applicant ; 4 . Case No. 146MF is referred back to the Design Review Board to consider : a) The development of a decorative block wall along 44th Avenue and Adonis at the propertyline; b) The development of a water element such as jacuzzi or wading pool westerly of the proposed garage area; and, c) The requirement of the roof ; 5. Case No. 152MF is hereby approved subject to the conditions suggest by the Design Review Board and the addition of Condition No . 8 which will read - The proposed mezzanine/two story element shall be deleted and said development shall be limited to single story in conformance with the S.P. overlay. carried unanimously (5-0) . X. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None XI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None X I I . COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - Not present C. Planning Commissioners Chairman Kelly noted her concern and disgust with the landscaping that is being put in that is not as approved by the Commission. Also the construction trucks are a nuisance and a hazard. The names should he taken and something done. Regarding Design-Review Board cases, they should not come before the Planning Commission unless the projects are com- plete. Commissioner Kryder asked why no one else has taken care of their trash enclosures as he was required to do . Mr. Williams stated that all these problems will be checked into and handled. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 3 , 1978 Page Eleven XIII . ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, the meeting was adjourned at 12 : 30 a.m. ; carried unanimously tow PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: GLO IA KELLY, Chairman., /ks