Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0620 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - JUNE 20 , 1979 1: 00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at 1: 00 by Chairman Snyder in the City Hall Council Chambers . II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Fleshman low III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Fleshman Commissioner Kryder Chairman Snyder Excused Absence: Commissioner Miller Others Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Murrel Crump - Principal Planner Stan Sawa - Associate Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes of meeting of May 29 , 1979 On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commiss- ioner Fleshman, the Minutes of May 29 , 1979 , were approved as tow written; carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NOS. ZOA 02-79 and C/Z 06-79, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: Consideration of an Amendment of the City' s Zoning Ordinance Text and Map for that portion of the City generally located south of Highway 111, west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, and east of existing westerly City boundary, contained within an approx- imately 721 acre area; in accordance with the re- commendations contained in the adopted Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan. Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that this Amendment is in accordance with the recommendations contained in the adopted Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan. Mr. Crump briefly summarized the material submitted to the Commission. He also indicated need for an additional sub- low section which would be numbered 25. 14 . 050 and would pertain to maximum development densities. It was noted that the following subsections would be appropriately renumbered per the sheet that was handed out at the meeting. (see attached) Mr. Crump indicated that a letter from Perkins & Will, representing G. George Fox (APN 629-070-01 and -14) , was received. Mr. Crump then presented the contents of the letter to the Commission. (see attached) MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20 , 1979 Page Two VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT'D) Commissioner Berkey requested that, on the first page of tb- draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 407 , the word " consistent' be changed to 11 compatible" under No. 2 of the Change o Zone . Amendment findings. The Commissioners and Staff concurred with the Amendment. Commissioner Berkey also questioned the minimum 2 , 000 sq. ft. unit size in the RE zone standards. It was determined after discussion that such a minimum might not be appropriate in all cases. Commission requested that, in the RE Standards under Section 'H' , the 'second sentence be amended to read as follows : "The required setbacks and dwelling unit size shall be as approved by the Planning Commission as a part of their action on the Required Conditional Use Permit" (for lots in the Hillside Overlay District) . Commissioner Fleshman asked questions regarding the front yard setback and minimum rear yard of 200 ft. recommended for 5 acre RE lots. Staff provided clarification on both points. Chairman Snyder then declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. KURT MILLER, 2051 Leavenworth St. , San Francisco, re- presenting FREDERICK WHITMAN, stated that they are presently designing a low-density residential project for Mr. Whitman' s property. Mr. Miller presented two areas of concern. The first area of concern pertained to minimum dwelling unit size which was previously addressed. The second concern pertained to Sec- tion D under Code Section 25. 52. 060 pertaining to landscaping types permitted. - Commissioner Snyder then declared the Public Hearing closed. The Commission discussed the landscaping concern brought up by Mr. Miller and determined that Section D be reworded as follows: The use of plants not indigenous to the hillside for landscaping shall be carefully considered and precisely placed. " Staff them summarized the four changes to the Resolu- tion. Additionally, Staff suggested a possible change in the Drainageway, Floodplain, and Watercourse Overlay District men- tioned in the Perkins & Will letter. It was determined that in Section 25. 46. 070 regarding the Drainageway, Floodplain, Water- course Overlay District, that the second-to-last sentence be reworded as follows: "The exact location of development shall include the determination resulting from a hydrologic study. " The possibility of taking Mr. Fox' s property out of the proposed Zone Change and placing it into a Study Zone was dis- cussed and considered inappropriate at this time. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commiss- ioner Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 497 was adopted, with the five changes as previously mentioned; carried unanimous- ly (4-0) . VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of Initiation of a Comprehensive General Plan Amendment (Tentative Case No. GPA 02-79) . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20 , 1979 Page Three VIII . NEW BUSINESS (CONT'D) Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed amendment to the General Plan. The report which was submitted to the Commission on the General Plan was explained. Commission discussed hous- ing and timing of the proposed revisions. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, Planning Commission Resolution No. 498 was adopted; carried unanimously (4-0) . h.r B. Consideration of Proposed Water Line Replacement Project by the COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. Mr. Williams reviewed this request stating that it was a determination of compliance with the General Plan. Mr. Williams stated that Staff feels the project would be in com- pliance with the General Plan and recommended approval. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 499 was adopted; carried unanimously (4-0) . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of June 12 , 1979. Mr. Sawa presented the four cases (96C, 115C, 116C, and 177MF) which were reviewed at the Design Review Board meeting of June 12, 1979. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 73-700 Highway 111, Palm Desert, .r speaking for E.G.S. METRO, questioned the parking requirements. Mr. Ricciardi presented the background and history of the shopp- ing center. It was determined that Staff should review the history of the center to determine the options available to the applicant with regard to parking. It was generally felt that it would be desirable to upgrade the rear of the existing center if possible. On Case 116C, BEN BARNUM, 74065 Mockingbird Trail, Indian Wells, questioned the need for a 5 ft. walkway along the east property line. After discussion, this item was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant to contact the adjacent owner to the east to determine if a walkway could be eliminated on both properties. On Case 115C, Mr. Barnum questioned Condition No. 5 which requires slumpstone sidewalls to match the front and rear elevations. Mr. Barnum felt that this was an added cost item which would be covered over when the properties to the east and west were redeveloped. After considerable discussion regarding alternate solutions, it was determined that precision block with mortar wash and paint to match the block used on the front elevation would be acceptable. . On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 500 , ' 11P approving 96C, 177MF, continuing item 116C to July 10 , 1979 and amending Condition No. 5 of Case 115C as stated above, was adopted; carried unanimously (4-0) . X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI . COMMENTS A. City Staff - None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20 , 1979 Page Four XI . COMMENTS (CONT'D) B. Planning Commissioners - None XII. ADJOURNMENT - 2 : 30 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: WALTER SNYDER, Ch 0rman o- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20 , 1979 (ATTACHMENT) Page Five CASE NOS. ZOA 02-79 AND C/Z 06-79 , CITY OF PALM DESERT 25. 14. 050 Maximum Development Densities. The maximum dens- ity shall be as expressed in dwelling units per gross acreage of not more than the designation following the zoning symbol RE; and, as further restricted by the application of an Overlay District suffix. 25. 14 . 060 Development Standards for 5 Gross Acre Lots 25. 14 . 070 Development Standards for Existing Lots of Record or Lots Greater Than 1 Gross Acre But Less Than 5 Gross Acres 25. 14. 080 Development Standards for 1 Gross Acre Lots or Less, But At Least 40,000 Square Feet Net Size 25. 14. 090 General Development Standards Applicable to All Lots 25. 14 . 100 Special Standards f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20 , 1979 (ATTACHMENT) Page Six CASE NOS. ZOA 02-79 AND C/Z 06-79 , CITY OF PALM DESERT ra Chicago,New York,Washington Lr Al M 09��; Architects,Engineers,Planners,Interior&Graphic Designers r'a 3 �1 © ; r erkins:S�7�HI Two North LaSalle Street,Chicago,Illinois 60602,312/977-1100,Telex:25-4239 June 15, 1979 JUN 19 1979 ENVIROP;NiENTAL SckVICES CITY OF PALM DESZRT Mr. Paul A. Williams, AICP Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Public Hearing, Stormwater Channel Specific Plan Dear Paul : Our client, G. George Fox (APN 629-070-01 and -14) will be unable to attend the public hearing on the above, and has instructed me to convey our concerns regarding the matters set forth in the legal notice of June 8, 1979• We are encouraged by the city's efforts towards the implementation of the Stormwater Specific Plan and your continual concern for realistic, sound planning for the area. We particularly support efforts towards improving flexibility in the application of standards in the Hillside Overlay District as you have set forth in the revised Section 25.52.060. However, we are unable to comment upon the units per acreage allowance and other requirements of 25.52.060 to the Fox property until the issues raised in your letter of April 24, 1979 have been addressed to your satisfaction. As per your request, following our March 22, 1979 application to the city for a Planned Residential Project approval , we have retained the services of local engineers to evaluate the hydrologic, soils and seismic issues you have raised. We believe that these engineering studies are essential and their results will improve our project for the benefit of the city. Unfortunately, these necessary studies have delayed the submission of our revised plans beyond the time previously assumed. We would, therefore, reserve comment upon the units per acre allowance until our plans have been completed and we request that the city delay action on this matter in regard to the Fox property until we have had sufficient time to answer your questions and to present our plans . In light of the above, this request would seem to be desirable and prudent for all parties concerned. We support the intent of revised Section 25 .52.090, to preserve MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Page Seven JUNE 20 , 1979 (ATTACHMENT) CASE NOS. ZOA 02-79 AND C/Z 06-79, CITY OF PALM DESERT lr.r Mr. Paul A. Williams, AICP .tune 15, 1979 Page Two open space but question the language in several regards: 1 . What is the extent of "all building rights" referred to in line 5? Would this prohibit planned site improvements such as pedestrian ways in natural areas? 2. Are natural areas different from open space areas? I understand why open space areas _ should be preserved and rights possibly tor dedicated, but what if natural areas are located in development areas as in the Fox proposal? Certainly rights would not be dedicated in this instance. A definition of which building rights are referred to, a definition of natural areas and where and how this paragraph would apply seems to be needed. We also support the intent of revised Section 25.46.070, Special Standards, but again question the language: 1 . A "Hydrologist" is a very specialized term which may be too limiting for your purposes . Many engineers may have a knowledge of and perform hydrologic work to everyones satisfaction but they may not be "Hydrologists" in the literal sense such as being certified, licensed or having some other special accreditation. 1 would suggest a definition of the term "Hydrologist" or substitution of language which will require hydrologic studies instead of who should do the work. 2. The exact location of development should not be solely determined by the Hydrologist as r suggested in line 4. Development location must consider all factors of which hydrology is only one. Many disciplines are involved in development location decisions in addition to hydrology when necessary. I suggest substituting the following language for line 4: MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20 , 1979 (ATTACHMENT) Page Eight CASE NOS. ZOA 02-79 AND C/Z 06-79 , CITY OF PALM DESERT Perkins& ili Mr. Paul A. Williams, AICP .tune 15, 1979 Page Three "The exact location of development shall consider hydrology among other factors." trust that these comments will be of use to you . Wishing you success in your continuing planning efforts. Sincerely, PERKINSl & WILL Richard W. Wilberg, AICP Director of Community Planning cc: G. George Fox RWW:cd