Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1005 MINUTES S P E C I A L PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY - OCTOBER 5, 1978 6: 00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The specially scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Com- mission was called to order by Chairman Kelly at 6 : 00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey 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 Clyde Beebe - Director of Public Works IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Item continued from October 3 , 1978 meeting, Case Nos. DP 15-78 , 93C and VAR 05-78 - WILLIAM BURNETT, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a Planned Commer- cial Development and a related Parking Variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from 898 to 834 spaces on approximately 15. 6 acres within the P.C. (3 ) , S.P. zone at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and El Paseo. Mr. Williams reviewed the Commission ' s concerns noted at the meeting of October 3 , 1978 , which included the location of the proposed market , the parking & traffic circulation. He then noted three alterna- tives that could be considered: 1 ) single sided parking with planters on the west side of the entrance; 2) move complex over 20 feet easterly with a loss of 22 parking spaces, but which would spread out the entrances; and, 3) create mini plaza' s around building C. WILLIAM BURNETT, applicant , noted that this is not a regional shopping center , it is a neigh- borhood center. Also, tenants do not favor double store fronts as they are not good for security reasons. He stated that the second alternative is not good and that the third alternative would cause the loss of a building. Commissioner Kryder asked if the original plan was not as feasible as the alternatives proposed. He did note that the parking as proposed now is better than the diagonal parking proposed in the first plan. Commissioner Snyder noted that the idea for the loading area is very good. Mr . Williams noted that the staff can work with the architect to solve the parking and entrance/exit problems. Commissioner Fleshman suggested that Design Review Conditions No. 3 , 4, 5, 8, & 11 be deleted. Condition No. 8 being covered in Condition No. 10, the others having been taken care of . With the approval of the Commission on the deletion of the noted Conditions, Commission Fleshman made it a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Snyder to approve the Cases by Planning Commission Resolution No. 412, subject to conditions; carried unanimously (5-0) . TTTFR.F WAS A In MTNTTTF RFf".F.RR AT THTS TTMF_ Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 5, 1978 Page Two IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) Commissioner Berkey left the room at this time due to a conflict of interest . A. Continued from September 5, 1978 , Case Nos. C/Z 08-78 , DP 11-78 and Related EIR - WESTERN ALLIED PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for a Change of Zone from ' S ' Study to PR-5(U.A. ) and O. S. (U.A. ) on approximately 680 acres, approval of an overall conceptual Residential Development Plan to allow 1,428 dwelling units and related recreational amenities and open space, and certification of the re- lated Environmental Impact Report as complete; the site being located approximately 3 miles southwest of the intersection of Highways Ill and 74, adjacent to the southerly boundary of the City of Palm Desert on the west side of Highway 74 . Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted correspondence received from various people opposing the change in density and the problems it will create for the City & the area in question. He also noted the concerns of the Design Review Board which included the discouragement of the apartment area. Chairman Kelly asked that the applicant clarify a few concerns with regard to drainage. RICHARD ROMELLI , the Planning Center , reviewed the proposal and noted several important points that should be considered : it is a mixture of resident- tial types; it preserves the open space; it solves flood problems; the scenic highway has been preserved; land is being donated for a park; and, it helps solve drainage problems. He also noted, that with the first phase it should only create between 10-20 additional woo students for the school district ; 51 . 97c will remain open space; the proposal is in conformance with the General Plan; development should only add 9, 000 trips per day. He also reviewed the drainage problems. Commissioner Fleshman noted that the General Plan shows 3-5 units in the area. Chairman Kelly asked if the drainage plan proposed would take care of the drainage problems in the Cahuilla Hills and the Silver Spur Mobile Home park area. Commissioner Snyder indicated that this proposal would tie in with the existing channel and those proposed by the C.V.C.W.D. HAROLD HOUSLEY, Project Engineer, stated that the developer will improve the channel through the pro- ject to the existing channel with the approval of the C.V.C.W.D. as proposed in the Bechtel report . Commissioner Kryder noted that he was absent from the last meet- ing at which time these cases were dicussed, but that he had listened to the tape of that meeting. He asked about the timing of the project . Mr . Romelli reviewed the phasing map of the project and noted that the construction would be as described in the Development Plan that was submitted to the Staff . The general Development Plan goes through 1984-85. RICHARD ROEMER, President ofWestern Allied Properties, thanked the Commission for having this special meeting to discuss this case. He noted the advantages of having this area developed as one project instead of "piece meal" . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 5, 1978 Page Three IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont. ) A. Case Nos. C/Z 08-78, DP 11-78 and Related EIR (Cont . ) ROBERT RICCIARDI , project representative, referred to the Flood Insurance meeting held the previous Friday, noting that if this project is put through within two years, the basins could be put in and serious flood problems could be controlled. He also stated that PR-5 is not high density. He also presented a petition, attached hereto as Exhibit A , from the people that live downstream from the proposed project stating that they are in favor of this type of project . Chairman Kelly noted that the Commission had met in a study ses- sion prior to the meeting for the purpose of clarifying the staff recom- mendations. No decisions were reached. Chairman Kelly then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present . She then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR of the proposed project . RUTH VALEUR 50-500 Highway 74, noted her agreement with the proposal . AMANDA MCMILLAN, 74-619 Catalina Way, stated she had driven through the area and feels that this proposal would be good for the area. GEORGE VALEUR, 50-500 Highway 74 , he noted that in the wild life area there is poaching and there is dumping by many people of their trash in the area. Also, the flora and fauna are being destroyed with no control of construction in the area. BOB LINSBEE, 73-382 Goldflower, in favor in the project as he was hurt by the last flood. CLAIRE GRAHAM, 73-307 Goldflower , stated she is not for or against , but that the shooting and dumping are a hazard in the area. Also, the density should be considered seriously and she is also concerned with the proposed apartments. RUSS JOHNSTON, 73-266 Goldflower, stated he is for the project with some reservations. He noted that this is one of the best EIR' s he has ever read and that he likes the project for the following reasons: it is phased over ten years; each phase will be reviewed by the Planning Commission before being approved; it is better to have a well designed plan than a scattered one; need apartments in area if they will have reasonable rates; flood control proposed will be helpful for area; Planning Commission must watch carefully the services for the area so that they are able to keep up with the growth, these ser- vices include gas, electricity, roads, traffic , and traffic control ; the low rise apartments should have parking out of sight from the road; and, CC&R' s should WNW be established for the Rancho area. Chairman Kelly asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project . JOE CADY, 71-855 Jacguar, noted his concerns for the flood control connections proposed, the drainage not being adequate and referred to a letter he received from the C.V.C.W.D. stating that there is no plan for flood control improvements in this area other than those proposed in the Bechtel report . He also noted his opposition to the 400 apartments proposed as they will become a ghetto in 10 years. He also referred to a letter from CALTRANS stating that they will be im- proving Highway 74 from E1 Paseo to Homestead within a few years. What is a few years? Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 5, 1978 Page Four IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Case Nos. C/Z 08-78, DP 11-78 and Related EIR (Cont . ) DR. GERRY MEINTZ, 74-450 Painted Canyon, stated that he is responsible for the student production of the film about the Cahuilla Hills aired on Channel 10. He stated that the City governments job is to choose a plan that reflects the character of the area involved. He noted that the kind of project proposed is his concern, as it is not right for the area. He stated that the Planning Commission should either reject the project or limit it to 1 dwelling unit per acre. ANNA HUNGER, 11 Cholla Lane, noted her concerns with the increased traffic and need for traffic lights and signals, and the accessibility of emergency vehicles to the area and the number of emergency vehicles avail- able. STEVE LOSIN, 71-745 Chia, noted his concerns with the apartments being low or medium income, the roads are inadequate, developer should have to help with the improvements in the area that he would be creating a need for, and the density should not be the issue, it is the type of development . ANN COOPER, 71-750 Chia, the population increase would be great ; services for area are not adequate, she objects to the condos being next to her property. ROSS DOW, #3 , Cahuilla Hills, stated he moved to the Cahuilla Hills because Palm Desert is too dense, the roads are a concern and the residents in the area paid for the roads that are paved in the area. He favors leaving the area as it is presently zoned. HAROLD BARTOW, 71-250 Oasis Trail, stated that transporta- tion in an emergency is concern and that flood control is a concern . TOM WADELL, 71-251 Cholla Way, should be area in City that is kept natural and the City should not give into these big developers. They should fight for good develop- ment . LEW CHAMBERS, 71355 Oasis Trail , flood control is concern, if the roads are paved there will be no more perculation. MRS. HANNA, Canyon Way, stated that the County won ' t allow her to improve her residence so why is the project going to be allowed. FRED SCHACK, Hawthorne, Ca. , stated he has been concerned with this area for over 25 years and he feels that any decision on this area should be postponed until the pro- blems that exist are solved. MR. CADY, noted that the Cahuilla Hills residents paid for the water pipes that are going in up Highway 74. FAY DAVIS, representative of the Bureau of Land Manage- ment , stated that the BLM would like to create a buffer between the development and the wild life area. They would like to set up a habitat management plan and they are working in coordination with the Department of Fish and Game. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 5, 1978 Page Five IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Case Nos. C/Z 08-78, DP 11-78 and Related EIR (Cont . ) CHRIS COKER, 44-800 Verbenia, noted his concern with the Big Horn Sheep and preserving them. DAVID SALVATOR, 48-655 Chia Road, noted his concern with the apartments being put in first which would create immediate growth and the school can ' t handle more students. He also stated he has been trying to get electricity hooked up to his home for a month and still doesn' t have it . Chairman Kelly asked if the applicant had any rebuttal to make a this time. Mr . Romelli , noted that most of the problems in the Cahilla Hills are due to the piece meal growth and poor planning. These problems could be solved with controlled planning. He restated the comments on growth and traffic and noted that the park land could be useful and the flood control in the area would be improved. He noted that he only objected to Conditions No. 3 and 4 and that he felt these could be worked out . Harold Housley, stated that based upon a discussion with CVCWD, the flood control downstream is adequate but no more water can be dumped in the channel until certain improvements have been made. He noted the letter sent to Mr. Williams that stated some condi- tions that Mr. Weeks feels should be applied to the case. (This letter is part of the staff report ) . Mr. Roemer , stated that he would like a decision to- night and he does not want the case continued any longer . Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder stated that development is inevitable and it is the Planning Commission ' s duty to see that growth is controlled. He noted that he likes the plan in itself and the EIR is very good. The City would benefit from the flood control and this is important and essential for the project . He is in favor of the open space to the east . It should be considered that this project will be done in phases and that this will not be a general approval of the entire development , whatever decision is made at this time. . He noted that the concerns of the citizens are well founded, but each phase will be public noticed and the citizens can speak again at that time. The density should be cut down from what is being proposed by the developer . Commissioner Fleshman stated that he appreciated the attendance and hopes that the citizens will continue to work together and with the City. He then noted that the area should stay at the low end of the density range as stated in the General Plan, 3-5 per developable acre is good. Commissioner Fleshman referred to the area in the canyon and stated that it should not be developed. He stated that he would like to see the City have the opportunity to approve some type of develop- ment on this property, but not apartments and not at this density. Commissioner Snyder stated that the City' s General Plan should be adherred to and that he is in favor of lower density which would allow an applicant to create a development in keeping with the character of the City. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 5, 1978 Page Six IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Case Nos. C/Z 08-78 , DP 11-78 and Related EIR (Cont . ) Chairman Kelly stated that she was glad to see the citizens here to speak regarding this project . She stated that she agrees with the comments that have been made and that she is not in favor of the pro- posed density, but in favor of the area being developed as one develop- ment . She asked for more reassurance on the flood control . Mr. Beebe stated that the City will have very little say in the flood control , that is CVCWD' s territory. He then noted that the flood control program as proposed would be good for the City. Chairman Kelly stated that she was still not satisfied and that traffic on Highway 74 is also a concern. Mr . Williams stated that the City is participating with CALTRANS to improve Highway 74 between El Paseo and Homestead. Mr. Beebe stated that the project Mr . Williams referred to is being held up by an EIR. He noted that CALTRANS will call for bids no earlier than January of 1980 and the City would then have to rethink their stand as the price will be greater at that time and the City will have to contribute more. Chairman Kelly stated that she thinks the area on Highway 74 should be S.P. and there should be no two-story apartments. She then referred to a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission some two years ago and the opinion at that time had been to keep the density low along Highway 74 . Commissioner Fleshman proposed as a motion that the zoning be PR-3 , S.P. and reduce the area by 26 acres (the canyon area mention- ed previously) which would make 244 acres and a total of 732 units. He then noted revisions to the conditions and Mr . Williams reviewed those conditions and revisions to the Resolution as follows: The heading of the resolution shall be changed to read PR-3 , S.P. (U.A. ) and a total of 732 units; & continued Public Hearing to October 5, 1978 ; 2nd page should also note PR-3 , S .P. (U.A. ) ; modification of the map to ex- clude the 26 acres (reasoning being that the comments from BLM regarding the wild life preserve as being dominant in the wash and it would limit development and allow for natural drainage) ; Exhibit B is modified similar to Exhibit A with the unit figure being changed to 732 and the legend numbers 1-5 being replaced. Special Condition No. 1 - units changed to 732 5 - No structure within 200 feet of Highway 74 (reasoning being the noise element on Highway 74) 8 - Dedication of all land and wild life preserves as part of the first phase. 11 - No construction within 200 feet of Section 30. 12 - No apartments shall be allowed. 13 , 14 , 15, & 16 - the Conditions as proposed by the CVCWD. 17 - No two-story structures permitted anywhere in the development . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Snyder, that the Com- mission approve the cases with the changes as noted by Planning Com- mission Resolution No. 413 ; carried (3-1-1) AYES : Fleshman, Kryder, Snyder ; NOES : Kelly; ABSTAIN: Berkey. kr;i ' iJTFS AMEN Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 5, 1978 Page Seven V. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned on a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, at 10: 00 p.m. ; carried unanimously (4-0) . PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: GLORIA KELLY, Chairman /ks +tire Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission Exhibit A October 5, 1978 Page 1 We the undersigned, residents of the City of Palm Desert, hereby express our approval of a project of the type proposed on the approximately 680 acres located 3 miles southwest of the Intersection of Highways 111 and 74, adjacent to the southerly boundary of the City of Palm Desert on the west side of Highway 74 - because it will provide a substantial beginning toward solving Palm Desert's flood problems and provide for the orderly development of a large single tract of land as opposed to the fragmented development of numerous separate parcels which might not include the flood control solutions. Name Address �f at �45 01) Ito 3-a z r-5: -7 7 7f- A- i�7 �;2 7 Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission Exhibit A October 5, 1978 Page 2 We the undersigned, residents of the City of Palm Desert, hereby express our approval of a project of the type proposed on the approximately 680 acres located 3 miles southwest of the Intersection of Highways 111 and 74, adjacent to the southerly boundary of the City of Palm Desert on the west side of Highway 74 - because it will provide a substantial beginning toward solving Palm Desert's flood problems and provide for the orderly development of a large single tract of land as opposed to the fragmented development of numerous separate parcels which might not include the flood control solutions. Name Address f 40 • ` D0%ff..Alhk4 n 7 • P- �a 7J &44t� 7,2- _ s : 3- 3 Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission Exhibit A October 5, 1978 Page 3 We the undersigned, residents of the City of Palm Desert, hereby express our approval of a project of the type proposed on the approximately 680 acres located 3 miles southwest of the Intersection of Highways 111 and 74, adjacent to the soXecause �dary of the City of Palm Desert on the west side of Highway 7 it will provide a substantial beginning toward solving Palm Deseod problems and provide for the orderly development of a large single tract of land as opposed to the fragmented development of numerous separate parcels which might not include the flood control solutions. Name Address i E rJ 3 73- JOY 6 la�L- arh4�is 73 � oy�S�' f��