Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0930 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 n x x ri x x :r x Yr * x x x x x x * * it x it x x r, I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Richards III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Kryder Commissioner McLachlan Commissioner Richards Chairman Miller Excused Absent: Commissioner Berkey Staff Present: Carlos Ortega, Acting Director of Environmental Services Murrel Crump, Principal Planner/Acting Secretary Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Phil Drell , Assistant Planner John Dos Santos, Assistant Planner Linda Russell , Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of September 17, 1980. Mr. Crump noted one correction: Page four, second to bottom paragraph should read: Commissioner McLachlan also was concerned with security lighting of the park and possible problems lack of lighting might create. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve the minutes as amended. Carried unanimously (4-0) . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-80, CUP 12-80 and 219 MF - WATT INDUSTRIES, Applicant A request for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-7, S.P. (Planned Residential , 7 d.u./ac. maximum density, Scenic Preservation) to R-2 (6), S.P. (Single Family Residential , 6,000 sq.ft./d.u. maximum density, Scenic Preservation) , a Conditional Use Permit and Related Design Review Case to allow the construction of 128 single family zero lot line dwelling units and associated recreational amenities on 18.72 acres located at the northeast intersection of 44th Avenue and the Palm Valley Storm Channel . Mr. Crump noted a letter was received by the applicant requesting for a continuance for further Design Review Board consideration, to October 15, 1980. Staff recommended a continuance to that date. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. GEORGE STONE, 43-831 Joshua Road, asked for further clarification of the requested project and was concerned for the drainage plans this project would be providing if approved. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 Page Two * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) The Commission directed Staff to give a brief presentation. Mr. Crump explained that the project is in a B zone of the Flood Zone Map, which means it is not subject to a flood hazard. He also pointed out that the applicant would be submitting a drainage plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case to October 15, 1980. Carried unanimously (4-0). B. Case No. VAR 07-80 - DON LINTON (Agent for GARY LYONS, Property Owner) , Applicant A request for approval of a Variance from off-street parking standards to allow Protection Services, Inc. to utilize a 4100 sq.ft. building as an office (17 parking spaces required, 8 spaces provided) within a C-1, S.P. (General Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone located on the north side of Highway 111, 300 ft. east of Cabrillo Avenue. Mr. Drell presented this case stating that there was a 9 space deficiency but that Protection Services, Inc. would have only six employees working in the building and would need parking space for only 2 or 3 customers. He stated that Staff felt 8 spaces would be adequate and recommended approval . Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. DON LINTON, 42-532 Tungston Place, briefly stated that he felt there would not be more parking space required. Chairman Miller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSIT11-D to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Kryder pointed out that there is additional street parking on Alessandro if its necessary. He made a motion to approve this variance, Commissioner McLachlan seconded, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 645, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (4-0). C. Case No. VAR 08-80 - BOB AND GORDANA SIPOVAC, Applicants A request for approval of a Variance from building height standards to allow the construction of a two-story (181, maximum height) triplex adjacent to an R-1 zone and within an R-3 20,000 (3) , S.P. (Multi-family Residential , 20,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size, maximum one d.u. per 3000 sq.ft. of lot area, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located on the east side of Ocotillo Drive 120 feet north of Verba Santa Drive. Mr. Drell presented this case stating that the 2-story complex would be built within the 18' height limit for a one story residence. He indicated that the property .owners within the 300 feet of the project were notified and only one adjacent property owner expressed concern for the possible view into his backyard. He pointed out that the developer was proposing to raise the second story window sill , facing southeast, 5'6" high to prevent this. Staff recommended approval . .. There was some discussion between the Commission and Staff regarding the Zoning Ordinance sections pertaining to building height in the R-3 zone and specific standards in the Scenic Preservation zone. It was clarified that the original intent in preventing 2-story structures adjacent to R-1 zoning was to keep buildings from obstructing the view. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 Page Three * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Vi. PUBLIG ht-AkINGS kconL. ) Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MS. DIANE STADELMAN, Representative for the project, indicated that they accept the conditions to the Draft Resolution and stated she would answer any questions the Commission or the public might have. Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in law FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. OPPOSITION: MR. GEORGE RITTER, 73-889 Hwy 111, member of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association and Architectural Committee, stated that 2-story structures create a greater intensity of use. He felt that 18' in height was too high and that there was no unusual circumstance to justify the variance. He pointed out that the primary concern was the invasion of privacy and felt that the intent of the ordinance was to create a buffer zone between the R-1 & R-3 one-story zones. Commissioner McLachlan asked why the letter received by the Architectural Committee of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association recommended approval with a one foot drop elevation and Mr. Ritter's real objection is privacy. Mr. Ritter explained that the-one foot drop would make a big difference in terms of visibility into the R-1 property. He also stated that the R-3 zone had the most density, and the R-1 zone had the least, creating a land use conflict. MR. STANLEY WYGLENDOWSKI, 46-125 Verba Santa, also opposed the project because of invasion of his privacy and was also concerned for the drainage. MARILYN BEEBE, 46-100 Ocotillo, stated she had apartment units north of the project and expressed her concern for the drainage. Mr. Crump explained that the drainage ordinance would require the project to drain to the streets. MR. JEFF HOUSE, 46-201 Verba Santa, also felt the project would invade his privacy. Chairman Miller asked Staff how far Mr. House's lot line is from the corner of the project. Mr. Drell replied approximately 15 feet. Commissioner Richards asked staff if the windows facing the R-1 zone, south- east, would be the only one to invade privacy. Mr. Drell replied that they were. MRS. DOROTHY CHIESSMAN, 46-115 Verba Santa, felt that if this variance is granted then it would not prevent others from developing 2-story units in that area. MR. JIM HARDY, 46-075 Verba Santa, stated he lives next to a vacant lot and was also concerned that a 2-story structure might be built there. He added that prior to purchasing his home he was told by a Realtor that there would never be a 2-story structure behind his property. MR. GEORGE SWEET, member of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, gave many reasons why the variance is not justifiable and strongly opposed. %No Chairman Miller asked the applicant for a rebuttal . Ms. Diane Stadelman explained that the project would be on a sloping site, therefore, they are dropping the pads down 4 feet to maintain a low profile. She explained how each adjacent property owner is protected from invasion of privacy by a hedge or dormer which provide screening. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Commission had any questions at this time. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 Page four * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) Commissioner Kryder felt there were no exceptional circumstances for granting the variance and felt the objections stated by the property owners were legitimate. Commissioner McLachlan felt that the intent of the ordinance was to prevent building of 2-story structures in that zone. He did agree that the privacy of the R-1 residents would be invaded. Commissioner Richards felt that if the windows on the second floor were eliminated, this would solve the problem of privacy. Commissioner McLachlan agreed and suggested it be included as a special condition. Ms. Stadelman did not object to this condition (eliminating the windows on the second floor). Motion was made by Commissioner McLachlan to approve the variance with the additional condition that all second floor windows are to be excluded; this motion was seconded by Commissioner Richards, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 646. The vote was as follows: AYES: Richards, McLachlan NOES: Kryder, Miller ABSENT: Berkey ABSTAIN: None It being a tie vote the Commission felt that Commissioner Berkey, should review this request. Therefore, the Public Hearing was reopened by Chairman Miller and motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case to November 5, 1980. Carried unanimously (4-0). THERE WAS A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 8:45 P.M. - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:55 P.M. D. Case No. DP 10-80 - ROBERT R. MCLACHLAN and KURT DONAT ASSOCIATES, Applicants A request for approval of a Development Plan to allow construction of a 49 unit motel and associated 30,000 sq.ft. athletic club on 3.92 acres within the PC (4) , S.P. (Resort Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located 900 feet east of Hwy 111, between Park View Drive and Cactus Drive. Commissioner McLachlan was excused from this case due to a Conflict of Interest. Mr. Sawa presented this item describing the two uses (Motel and Athletic Club) . He used the illustration to show the locations of the proposed driveways, two being emerggency access only. Mr. Sawa reviewed the "exceptions" requested and noted Staff's main concerns were that the restaurant be private and a juice bar operation (no parking required) ; and, interface between the existing residences to the east and the athletic club. He stated that the 15 feet setback between the property line and the athletic club, proposed by the applicant, was not acceptable to Staff. He felt that consideration should be made in reducing the height of the structure and increasing the setback. Mr. Sawa stated that Staff recommended approval with an additional Special Condition No. 12 to read: Easements to be recorded prior to issuance of any building and grading permits to provide for common parking, circu- lation, and access between the two proposed parcels. Commissioner Richards asked Staff what the height would be of the Athletic .r. Club after lowering it as recommended. Mr. Sawa stated that the Design Review Board would establish the specific height but the current height was 23 feet and a 5 foot drop would lower it to 18 feet, which is the maximum height allowed for R-1. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 Page Five * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. rUJLiu ncnnliruj (cont. j Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking of the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. KURT DONAT, Architect for the project, indicated that he spoke to some residents in the neighborhood of the project and one of their concerns was for the zoning in that area. He also stated his objection to the conditions regarding lowering the height of the athletic club and increasing the 15 feet setback requirement (condition No. 4). Commissioner Richards asked Staff to give a brief history of the zoning for that project. Mr. Crump replied that the zoning in that area was implemented in 1975, therefore, existing for 5 years. Mr. Donat also explained the procedures for vacating Cholla Drive, noting that the Fire Marshal concurred. He indicated that the 15 feet setback was within the development standards and that because the building would not have windows facing the nearby residences and there would be extensive landscaping treatment, there will be no privacy problem. He further stated that the proposed height of the athletic club was allowable in that zone. and if the pad was lowered 5 feet it would be below the flood plain. Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. PAUL MILLER, 72-440 Cholla Drive, stated he was being subjected to a project that was strictly non-residential and was very much opposed to the development. He also felt that the athletic club would be too close to his property line and was concerned for flood problems. MR. TOM LANE, 72-435 Cholla Drive, stated that with this development he would have the front of his property facing the athletic club and the back facing a 7 foot wall . He also stated that he would not have a turn around from his driveway if Cholla Drive was to be vacated. Mr. Crump noted that the plans were still preliminary on how Cholla Drive would be vacated. MR. CHARLES SCHELLY, 72-445 Cholla Drive, was concerned about access use on Cactus Drive and felt that noise and flooding would be a future problem. He also noted he did not receive a legal notice for this item. MRS. SCHELLY, 72-445 Cholla Drive, stated that she did not object to the athletic club because she and her husband enjoyed racquetball , but that the athletic club would not be opened to the public and felt that it was needed. MR. HARRY STEEL, 72-440 Cactus Drive, also stated he did not receive notice and was concerned for the depreciation value of his home if the project was approved. MS. MABLE DAYTON, 72-450 Cholla Drive, was concerned about noise, flood and privacy. MR. GEORGE STONE, Joshua Road, was concerned about the drainage and flood control . Chairman Miller assured Mr. Stone that this project would be reviewed by the City's Flood Control Committee. ftow Commissioner Richards asked Staff to review the legal noticing procedures and consider alternative methods. Chairman Miller asked Mr. Donat for a rebuttal . Mr. Donat stated that there would not be a problem with a hammerhead or turnaround on Cholla Drive for neighboring driveways. He also stated that they could lower the 7 foot wall but still objected to increasing setback and the 5 foot drop in elevation. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 Page Six VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) There was some discussion between the applicant and the Commission and Staff regarding the conditions included in the Draft Resolution. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Kryder felt that the project was not appropriate for this area and gave several reasons why. He suggested consideration for establishing a buffer zone. Commissioner Richards felt the development would be good for this area but was concerned about the 23 foot high building next to residences. Commissioner Kryder also stated that he felt turning residential lots into commercial was unnecessary. Chairman Miller felt that the project was too close to residential zoning. There was more discussion between the Commission and it was decided to reopen the Public Hearing and continue this case to October 15, 1980. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case to October 15, 1980. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner McLachlan abstaining). VII. OLD BUSINESS - NONE VIII. . NEW BUSINESS A. Coachella Valley Water District Project - Determination of Compliance with the General Plan. Mr. Drell stated that this item was reviewed by Staff and it was determined that it was in compliance with the General Plan. He recommended approval of the request. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve the determination by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 646. Carried unanimously (4-0) . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Land Use for the northeast corner of Cook Street and 44th Avenue Correspondence received. B. Community Development Block Grant - 1980-81 Projects. These items were discussed in study session and no further information was necessary. XI. ORAL COMMUNICATION - NONE XII. COMMENTS - NONE XIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Carried unanimously (4-0). LA 1 (7. ATTEST: 4SAN SAWA, Acting Secretary CHA E I YLE , Chairman