Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0401 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 1, 1980 7:00 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 7:02 P.M. by Cha�rman Snyder in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey �+ III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Miller Chairman Snyder Staff Present: Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner � Linda Russell , Planning Secretary , Others Present: Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of March 19, 1980. Mr. Crump noted one correction: Page 2, second paragraph from bottom, the word "replaced" was changed to "placed". Upon motion made �by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Minutes were approved as amended. Carried unanimously (4-0) . � V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter received from Mr. Stephen A. Fleshman, of Ballew-McFar7and, concerning General Plan Policy interpretation for the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Crump stated that this was briefly discussed with Commission in Study Session. Chairman Snyder asked if anyone from the audience cared to address the Commission on this matter. MR. C. ROSERT HUBBARD, 22 Stanford Drive, Rancho Mirage, gave a brief background on a proposed future project, He then introduced Mr. Fleshman. MR. STEPHEN FLESHMAN, 74-075 E1 Paseo, reviewed with the Commission exhibits which showed the project`s location, present zoning and the proposed changes, which they would be requesting at a future date. He asked that the Commission review the proposed zoning as to its conformance with the City's General Plan. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Fleshman if they were asking for a review of the overall proposed changes for this location. Mr. Fleshman stated yes, and explained further that basically they wanted the Commission's consideration � of their interpretation of the project's conformance with the City's General Plan. Commissioner Miller explained what the procedures were for a change of zone, which he felt was necessary, and was not clear as to why it was brought up at this time. Commissioner Kryder asked Mr. Fleshman where the access off Deep Canyon would be located. Mr. Fleshman pointed access points out on the exhibit he provided. MINUTFS PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -2- ****************************************************************************** V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (continued) The Commission concluded that the overall project, as conceptualized, could conform to the City's General Plan, and that a specific determination will be made when the proposed project is presented to the Commission. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS '� � A. Case Nos. CUP 16-77 and 104 MF - JOHN ADAMS, Applicant � Request for approval of an amendment of Special Condition No. 2 of an approved Conditional Use Permit to waive undergrounding of utilities as part of construction and, pursuant to Section 25.56.120 of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, permit applicant to guarantee that said property will voluntarily be part of any undergrounding � assessment district which may be established by the City including the property in question, for property consist- ing of approximately 1.5 acres, within the R-3 20,000(3) , S.P. (Multi-family Residential , minimum 20,000 square foot lot, one dwelling unit per 3000 square feet of lot area, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located on the east side of Ocotillo Drive, approximately 400 feet south of Tumbleweed Lane. Mr. Crump presented this case stating that the applicant had req�.�ested to amend the special condition regarding undergrounding of utilities because one pole adjacent to the subject property services an existing single family dwelling. Mr. Crump explained that an undergrounding district agreement could be entered into as an alternative to undergrounding as a part of construction. Staff recommended approval of an amendment to this condition. ::� � Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. � MR. JOHN ADAMS, 73-200 Tumbleweed Lane, gave a short presentation and explained why he was opposed to the condition requiring undergrounding. He also stated that there was no undergrounding on Ocotillo and did not feel it was fair to him to have to pay this considerable expense himself. He then introduced Mr. Wade. MR. JOHN WADE, Electrical Contractor, 42-818 Clifford Street, pointed out on the exhibit what would have to be undergrounded, the location of the poles and development near the area. He explained why this condition should be modified. Chairman Snyder asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the wording on the draft condition written in the Resolution, which included an agreement guaranteeing voluntary participation in any undergrounding district. Mr. Adams replied that he was agreeable to this draft condition. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Kryder agreed with Staff's recommendation, explaining that the burden of undergrounding the utilities was not fair to the applicant. � Commissioner Berkey also agreed with Commissioner Kryder but felt the draft ,� condition should be modifed, del�ting the requirement of undergrounding the pole which had no service line connection. Mr. Crump clarified the modification which read as follows : "Any/all utility service lines on subject property, shall be placed underground prior to occupancy clearance. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall execute a record agreement, to run with the land, acceptable to the City Attorney, guaranteeing voluntary participation in any undergrounding district subsequently established by the City for that portion of the overhead utili- ties adjacent to the site which are not undergroundtd as a part of construction." MINtIa'ES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -3- ******************************************************************************* VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) The Commission concurred with the modification as read. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Special Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 320, was amended as stated, for Case Nos. CUP 16-77 and 104 MF, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 583. Carried unanimously (4-0) . �.. B. Case No. CUP 01-80 - DAVID HEUSINKVELD (Represented by: HARRY H. SCHMITZ AND ASSOCIATES) , Applicants Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert a nine unit apartment complex to "non-statutory" condominiums of approximately 1000 square feet each on approximately .7 gross acres within the R-3 13,000 (3) (Multi-family Residen- tial , minimum 13,000 square foot lot, one dwelling unit per 3000 feet of lot area) zone generally located at 73-415 Shadow Mountain Drive, approximately 700 feet east of Tumbleweed Lane. Mr. Crump presented this case using an exhibit to point out the layout of the complex. He noted that parking facilities were on one portion of the site, which more resembled an apartment design, rather than cluster condominiums. He also pointed out that the proposed carport location varied from the R-3 yard requirements. He concluded noting that letters had been received in favor of the conversion, from present renters. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, Planning Consultant, 45-900 Paseo Coronado, felt that the parking area and design was appropriate and would not be detrimental . � He questioned three conditions: No. 10, requiring recordation of a tract map before development; he felt this condition did not apply since the project is already developed. Mr. Crump explained that it was necessary since the carports still had to be built. No. 12, requiring detailed construction floor plans; he felt this was also not necessary. Chairman Snyder explained that this is a requirement by the ordinance and the Commission had to abide by it. Mr. Crump also stated that there was a question as to the floor area meeting the require- ment of 1,000 sq. ft. minimum. No. 11, requiring service wires to be undergrounded; he felt this condition was an unfair burden to him since the service wires would be connected to other buildings. The Commission agreed this was a similar case to the one previously discussed and concurred to amend this condition to read as stated in the previous case, in Planning Commission Resolution No. 583. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Case No. CUP O1-80 was approved as amended, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 584. Carried unanimously (4-0� . C. Case No. CUP 02-80 - JOE E. BULOS, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow �r construction of a nursery school for a maximum of 40 children on approximately .25 gross acres within the R-1 10,00Q (Single Family Residential , minimum 10,000 square feet) zone generally located at the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive. Mr. Crump presented this case showing the location of the proposed project on the exhibit. He explained why the design of the parking facilities was not adequate. Mr. Crump indicated that the Commission had two specific points to consider in their deliberations: 1) Whether the proposed location was appropriate far the intended use; and, 2) Whether the design of the site was acceptable for the contemplated use. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -4- ******************************************************************************* VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) , Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. JACK PETERS, 42-730 Dunes View Rd. , Rancho Mirage, explained that Mr. Bulos was out of town but he was representing him. He briefly explained the need of a nursery school and asked that the Commission approve this case. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of this case. MS. PAULA LONGSTRETH, 73-299 Ridgecrest, expressed her views on how much a nursery school was needed in the City. She also explained why the parking area would not cause a problem, being that the parents would be arriving and departing at different times of the day. MR. DON BIGALOW, 45-886 Mountain View Drive, also felt the parking would not be a problem. MS. SUE LEWIS, 43-211 Virginia Street, noted there was a long waiting list for a nursery school and also felt it was necessary. Chairman Snyder asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in OPPOSITION to this case. RUSS ADAMSON, 46-079 Portola, stated he was a resident in the area and felt the location was dangerous. He added that the nursery school would add congestion to the corner. He also provided signed petitions from other residents in that area opposing the school . FRED WARRICK, 74-040 Old Prospector, stated his reasons for opposing the school , which were the same as Mr. Adamson's. He also provided letters � and petitions. JOSEPH GALLO, 74-035 Fairway, also felt the location was not appropriate. CHRISTOPHER BLAISDELL, Attorney, 45-169 San Luis Rey, stated the City already has too many schools in this area. PHILLIP MOORE, 74-370 Old Prospector, also felt it was not an appropriate location for a school , and the parking was inadequate. There being no one else, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey stated that he believed the City needed a pre- school but does agree that the location would create a traffic hazard. Therefore he was not in favor of approving this case. The Commission concurred this was not an appropriate location for a nursery school . Upon motion made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Case No. CUP 02-80 was denied by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 585. Carried unanimously (4-0� . D. Case No. VAR 02-80 - CHALFONT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a Variance to waive the requirement of � two additional parking spaces for a 750 square foot addition to a commercial building on approximately .16 gross acres, within the C-1, S.P. (General Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay� zone generall located on the north side of Highway 111 (Palm Desert Qrive� approximately 400 feet east of De Anza Way. Mr. Crump presented this case explaining that because this business needed additional area for equipment and storage, they were requesting a building addition which would result in a parking variance. Staff did not believe there was sufficient justification to grant a variance, therefore, recommended denial . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -5- ******************************************************************************* VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. TOM LEMMON, 124 Las Lomas, gave a brief presentation on the background and explained the procedures they went through. He also explained that there wouldn't be additional parking needed because employment would not increase, and because of this he asked the Commission to grant the Variance. � Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey suggested that an agreement might be made in regards to in lieu parking fees. Mr. Crump stated that the City did not have a program to construct City parking facilities at this time. Commissioner Berkey then stated that an agreement to join into such a district in the future might be appropriate. Commissioner Kryder did not feel there would be a parking problem and therefore, was in favor of granting the Variance. Commissioner Berkey agreed, but added that a condition should be added requiring the applicant to pay in lieu parking space fees. The Commission concurred and upon motion made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Miller, Variance No. 02-80 was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 586, subject to conditions. Acting on the Commission's direction the following conditions were subsequently drafted for inclusion in the Resolution: l. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State City and any other applicable government entity shall be complied �+ with as a part of the use of this Variance. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 79-7, the applicant shall pay $4,000 into the City In-Lieu Parking Space Fund, prior to the use of this Variance. Use of this Variance shall be construed to be the issuance of building permits. Carried unanimously (4-0). E. Case No. Dp 04-80 and 204 MF - J.M. PETERS COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and related Design Review application to allow a 156 unit development with related recreational amenities and open space on approximately 34.06 gross acres located at the northeast corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street in the PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential , max. 5 d.u./ac. , Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone district. Mr. Crump presented this case showing the location on the exhibit and reviewing the staff report. Thp main issue in this case was access off Cook St. Staff felt that a main entrance should be provided off Hovley Lane from Via Cinta. Mr. Crump stated that the main reason for this was to restrict the number of access points to Cook Street to a minimum. He stated that the applicant chose to have its major entry from Cook Streete He then gave a number of reasons as `�"' to why the entrance should be from Via Cinta. Staff recommended approval sub- ject to conditions. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. STEPHEN FLESHMAN, Representative, 74-075 E1 Paseo, stated that they had no objections to all the conditions except Special Condition No. 1, which addressed the main entrance: He explained that all other projects off Cook St. also had their main entrance off Cook. He then pointed out on the site plan exhibit a proposed secondary entrance from Via Cinta. Mr. Fleshman concluded that because of desired visibility and identification of the project, they would like the access to remain as proposed. MINUi'ES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -6- ******************************************************************************* VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Commissioner Miller asked if the guard gate on Cook Street had sufficient turn-around. Mr. Fleshman replied that it did and illustrated on the exhibit how this would be provided. Chairman Snyder opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey believed that it would be discriminative to not allow access of Cook Street, and with the new access being proposed he suggested to delete Special Condition No. l. Commissioner Kryder concurred. Commission agreed to amend Special Condition No. 1 to read as follows: "A secondary access shall be provided from Via Cinta, " Chairman Snyder asked Mr. Beebe, City Engineer, if he had any comments. Mr. Beebe referred to his memorandum, which concurred with Staff that the proposed main entrance should be relocated to Via Cinta. After a brief discussion the motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve Case Nos. DP 04-80 and 204 MF, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 587, as amended. Carried unanimously (4-0). VII. OLD BUSINESS - NONE VIII. NEW BUSINESS - NONE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS WERE DEFERRED TO A LATER POINT IN THE MEETING. X. ORAL COMMUNICATION NOTE: Case No. DP 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan to allow construction of a hotel/condominium complex, racquet club, and commercial and professional spaces, located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. This application was noticed for Public Hearing, but subsequently found to be incomplete, and processing was suspended. MR. STEPHEN FLESHMAN briefly explained to the Commission what the request was for and what the problems were at this point. He requested from the Commission that they grant the applicant more time to complete the necessary processing and for this case to be put on the April 16th Agenda. Mr. Crump stated that State Law provides for the rejection of applications if found incomple�e within 30 days of filing. Mr. Fleshman pointed out that they were not notified of the case not being on the Agenda until last week. He also added that there were several pre-filing meetings with Staff. Mr. Crump stated that the applicant was aware that Staff needed more application information along with other procedural requirements. Commissioner Berkey asked if this matter could be done within the next meeting date. Mr. Crump again stated that this case has not been properly submitted therefore, action could not be taken. MINU7ES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1980 Page -7- ****************************************************************************** X. ORAL COMMUNICATION (continued) MR. JOHN BALLE4J addressed the Commission and explained that the matter was an honest dispute between the applicant and Staff, in regards to a variance requirement.which involved the number of driveways proposed for this project. He felt that the Commission should state whether a variance is needed to be filed or not. He hoped that this matter could be resolved in two weeks and if it was determined that they be required to resubmit they would. He asked for more time to continue with the application. � The Commission concurred that because this case was already publicized they agreed to allow this matter to continue to the next meeting. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of March 25, 1980. 205 MF - Mr. Sawa presented this case noting that this was previously approved as a CUP Amendment. He stated that the Board reviewed this case and approved with some revisions. He reviewed those revisions and recommended approval . Upon motion made by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Design Review Board Case No. 205 MF was confirmed acceptable by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 588. Carried unanimously (4-0) . XI. COMMENTS A short discussion between Staff and Commission proceeded regarding the Stein-Brief/Vista case. � XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. � ��� � PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: � �� � �� WALTER SNYGER, Chair n /lr �