Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1108 MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY - NOVEMBER 8, 1982 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kryder III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Excused Absent: Commissioner Downs Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Linda Russell Doug Phillips, City Attorney IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 1982 Chairman Wood approved the minutes as submitted. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the council for the meeting of November 4, 1982. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and ZOA 11-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a general plan amendment, change of zone, zoning ordinance amendment, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, involving hillside development standards for property generally located between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and western city limits. Chairman Wood announced that the commission and staff had reviewed this matter in study session prior to the meeting. Commissioner Crites excused himself from this public hearing item because of a possible conflict of interest. He stated that while he felt no conflict existed and such broad interpretation of the law was not proper, he would abstain based on advise of the city attorney. Chairman Wood noted that a staff report would be presented after public testimony tow is given. He opened the public hearing and invited testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MRS. DORI CREE, requested to be allowed to build 1 more unit per 5 acres on the bottom 5 acre parcels (those located at the toe of the slope). She felt that the property owner's requests versus the proposed ordinance is not a significant difference. MR. ALAN PERRIER, representative for Mr. Fox, gave a thorough explanation of the 1979 specific plan and concluded that the rescinding of the specific plan represented a significant change. He did not feel the present formula for density determination is fair. He suggested that the present ordinance be amended to implement the specific plan and -1- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1982 delete the slope density formula.. MR. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, representing Dr. Bertran and Mr. Beckendorf, requested the following amendments: 1) Deletion of the requirement that the topography map be completed by an engineer approved and under contract to the city. 2) Increasing permitted grading on 35% slopes to allow 22,000 sq.ft. pads and grading for pools, and tennis courts. 3) Allow road grade greater than 20%. 4) Substitute the word compatible for blend in reference to building and landscape architecture. 5) Delete section requiring dedicating of building rights for open space. 6) Height limits should be specific. Chairman Wood requested staff to make a presentation. Mr. Diaz addressed the concerns raised: He first stated that public notice was given in accordance with legal requirements; regarding present zoning in the area, the general plan designates planned residential, hillside overlay. In answer to Mr. Perrier's comment he explained that within the hillside overlay hotels are not permitted without a conditional use permit; and, 50 to 60 dwelling units could be built depending on the option selected. In regards to the specific plan, he explained that this plan was adopted in 1979 but does not reflect the present goals and policy of the city. Slope density formula elimination was suggested and Mr. Diaz explained why the formula was needed. Regarding public improvements, he felt that they have not been definitive or demanding in that area because it could run into an expense greater than the recommended densities could afford. He then introduced Mr. Drell to present option 4. Mr. Drell described the noticing procedures in order that the public and commission understood that every effort was made to explain to the public what was being proposed. In response to Mr. Ricciardi's concerns, Mr. Drell stated: 1) He agreed that the civil engineer need not be under contract to the city. 2) 22,000 sq.ft. of grading would be excessive, although the current 5,000 sq.ft. limitation could be increased to 10,000 sq.ft. 3) The fire marshal still requests the 20% limit on road grades. 4) Blend better expresses the city's architectural concerns. 5) Dedication of building rights only emphasizes to ,, ow prospective property owners that open space must be preserved. 6) The height limit is worded to give maximum flexibility. Mr. Drell then explained the new option designed to encourage lot consolidation by permitting higher density as the amount of acreage accumulated increases. Commissioner Richards was not clear as to what option 4 meant, but also referred to a concern expressed by Mr. Perrier regarding no follow-up for the slope density formula. Commissioner Richards asked staff to explain. Mr. Drell referred Mr. Richards to Appendix #2 of the proposal which discusses the deficiencies of the adopted specific plan and ordinances. Commissioner Richards stated that he thought the reason for the new plan was because the topography map used to calculate the slope density was inaccurate. Mr. Diaz replied that that was one of the problems with the specific plan. Commissioner Kryder needed clarification on the square feet allowed and whether this included amenities. Mr. Diaz explained that it did not. Commissioner Richards in addressing the 20% road grade issue stated that on an isolated hillside a property owner could build a road up to the 20% grade and then say that the remaining road to his home was his driveway. He asked staff to address this issue. Mr. Diaz stated that in option 1 a property owner does not have to meet the 20% grade requirement; but if that same property owner wished a second unit then he would have to meet the 20% road grade requirement. Commissioner Richards asked staff to address the concern of heights. Mr. Drell stated that the height is not limited to give flexibility. Mr. Perrier commented on the road design and stated that if a limitation of 20% grade is made, he felt that in areas it would have to exceed that 20% grade. He did not see the justification that if a property owner builds a home that exceeds this 20% he does not have to comply within that 20% but if he built 2 units he must comply. Mr. Ricciardi felt that on the 10,000 sq.ft. limitation, this should be amended to -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1982 permit up to 22,000 sq.ft. if the applicant can demonstrate that the grading will not be harmful. He also felt that in some situations road and driveways greater than 20% are acceptable. Mrs. Cree expressed her great concern over the specific plan and the general plan. She felt the whole concept of this study was being changed and believed the analysis was unfair. She asked for staff to address that issue. Mr. Diaz replied that the specific plan done in 1979, as far as density, was incorrect and was never implemented. MR. LEROY KIRKPATRICK, 33-801-A Silver Lantern, Dana Point, Ca 92629, felt there were too many restrictions and property owners should be allowed to build. He addressed a concern to the city attorney; an easement road prior to city annexation was maintained by the Coachella Valley Water District. When the city annexed that area he was told that that road would be maintained by the city, but nothing has been done. It was believed that this road is Thrush Road. He suggested that another road into his area (Section 30) should be public domain. (Note: The road was not identified) City Attorney Doug Phillips replied that he would investigate the matter and send Mr. Kirkpatrick a letter. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked for further comments from the commission. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to reopen the public hearing and continue this matter to the meeting of December 7, 1982, 7:00 p.m. for further examination of Option 4. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Crites abstained). VIII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XI. COMMENTS - NONE XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. AMON A. DIAZ, Secretar ATTEST: RALPH WOOD, Chairman %NW Ar -3-