Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0501 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 'fUESDAY - MAY 1, 1984 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CEN1'ER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * � * * * � � � * * * � * * � � � � * * * * � � * * * * * * � � � A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM AT 5:30 P.M. �; I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Crites III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner powns Commissioner Erwood Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Others Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Steve Smith Phil Drell Phil Joy Linda R�ssell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 17, 1984 � Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the minutes as submitted. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the council for the meeting of April 26, 1984. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos. PP 84-7 dc C/Z 84-3 - BEAUCHAMP REALTY, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone, precise plan and development agreement to allow construction of 220 units on 10.1 acres generally located on the east side of Monterey Avenue, 350 feet north of San Gorgonio Way. Mr. Drell gave the staff report and noted staff's concerns were design and compatibility. The proposed density of 22 units per acre results in unavoidable conflicts with surrounding properties; therefore, staff recommended that the applicant revise the plans to address the neighborhood's concerns, or deny the request. �;,,,,,, A letter from Loraine and Robert Frederickson was received in opposition of the zone change. Commissioner Crites asked what information staff had regarding impacts to neighbors in R-1 abutting parking areas with this type of proposed density. Mr. Drell replied that the city has experienced this with commercial parking abutting R-1 but not this type of residential density. -1- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 1984 Chairman Wood asked what was being proposed as a buffer on the south and north sides of the project. Mr. Drell replied that heavy tree landscaping is proposed on the south to screen views of the project. On the north they propose to keep open to minimize obstruction of views of the mountain to the south and west. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR. There was � none offered. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION: JUDITH LANG, 73-330 Royal Palm, stated she was representing east side of Monterey and west of San Pablo. She gave commission a petition with 177 signatures in opposition. Their concerns included the possibility of the emergency exist being used as an access thereby creating traffic hazards in the Royal Palm area. She also believed property values would be lowered if this project was approved because it was her experience that owners of rental property do not maintain the area as well as owner-occupied residents. She believed that usually renters exceed the 2-car per family. She also emphasized the need to unite the city as a whole rather than serving only those on the south side of the city. KIEGER BARTON, 44-519 San Enselmo, did not believe the gates would stay closed at the east end to Royal Palm. He felt that Monterey Avenue was already a busy street and with the added traffic generated from this proposed project it could become very dangerous for pedestrians. The proposed density is not compatible to the neighborhood. He did not believe apartment units were needed in the city (i.e. advertisements in newpaper for rent). The high density will destroy his view. The proposed play area would create impacts to the adjacent property owners. He also disapproved of the trash bin location and felt the court lights would be q�estionable. He � concluded that the 10 acres should be developed as R-1 only. GLORIA SHAVER, 73-041 Guadalupe, submitted a letter objecting to the proposed project. She summarized the letter by pointing out the reasons for objecting to this project: Traffic, storm drain, security, no RV storage, and noise impacts. BOB GROWIER, 73-180 Catalina, felt that staff had not adequately addressed the problem of view. Visitor parking and traffic was not considered. CHUCK LANG, 73-330 Royal Palm, pointed out that the Town Center was not supposed to generate more traffic but it has. With this proposed project they will see more traffic. STAN SULFRET, 44-695 San Antonio Circle, felt that the area has become a getto. There is a traffic problem. He felt that cars are parked along the street from renters. He has a problem parking his recreational vehicle. He does not want apartment units, the renters would demolish the property in the area. Mr. Diaz asked Mr. Sulfret to contact him regarding the recreational vehicle problem. MR. JOHN TESMAN, Guadalupe, was concerned with a 10 foot easement on ,� Guadalupe. He believed it was quick claimed and was concerned that the owners would cancel the easement and require property line adjustment. Mr. Drell assured him that the owner of the easement is renouncing that easement and give up all rights to it. 1ACKLYN POWERS, felt that the proposed buffering would not resolve the -2- MINUTES PALM DESER7 PLANNING COMMISSION M!-lY 1, 1984 problem of privacy, noise and vandalism that is already there. She believed the density was too high. She felt a drainage problem will occur from this project and asked if the pads would be built up. Mr. Drell responded that the project would be draining into the storm drain constructed along Monterey therefore will not have to be built up since it will not be draining onto a road. A condition could be added that the height from natural grade would have to be maintained regardless of drainage provisions. ""'' MS. POWERS added that the San Gorgonio traffic is already dangerous and that area would be suffering for just one developer. She felt single family or condominiums would be more suitable. Chairman Wood asked the applicant for a REBUTTAL. MR. PHILIP WALL, project director, feit there was a dire need for rental units and the proposed site would be appropriate. MR. STEWART WOODARD, architect, spoke on the issues raised. 1) Views: he felt this issue was adequately addressed by staff and explained how the proposed setbacks minimize this impact. 2) Traffic: No traffic going through the single family residents; is willing to revise the emergency access to assure that it is not used as access. 3) Trash bins: No trash bins located on the north property line. 4) Visitor traffic: The parking provided would be more than adequate, no on-street parking. 5) Property devaluation: He does not believe single family homes would ever be proposed for this property; therefore, needs of the city have to be looked at for this property. He concluded stating this was a good project and it would suit the needs of the city (which was identified as rental units). As far as security, a 6 foot block wall along the entire project is proposed. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked for the pleasure of the �.... commission. Commissioner Crites felt that the applicant did the best job possible designing a project for that site but it was not compatible. He felt there were too many impacts and issues to the neighborhood and the density proposed is too high. He addressed the remarks made in terms of renters vs. property owners and did not agree that rented property is not maintained as well. Commissioner Richards felt that the applicant made a good point when he stated that something has to happen in that area, it cannot stay vacant. But the question was compatibility. He felt that 22 units per acre in the middle of an R-1 existing residential area is not compatible. In addressing a statement made earlier about the north vs. south site of the city, he disagreed stating that alot of time had been spent (and still is) for the north side. Commissioner Erwood also addressed a remark made earlier in regards to renters and stated that everyone must start somewhere and more than likely you start as a renter. These are not second class people. There are too many impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, therefore finds the project incompatible also. Chairman Wood felt there was a need for this type of housing but the the proposed site was not the place for it. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Carried unanimously 5-0. � A RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:25 - 'fHE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:35 P.M. B. Case Nos. ZOA 84-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant To re-establish minimum floor areas for studio apartments at 450 sq.ft. with a 1.5 space per unit parking requirement. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 1984 Mr. Diaz requested a continuance on this matter in order to further clarify the intent of the amendment. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked for input in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There was none offered. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to continue this � matter to May 15, 1984. Carried unanimously 5-0. � C. Case No. CUP 84-1 - DONALD McMILLAN for TOP OF THE DESERT LTD., Applicant Approval of a conditional use permit and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction and operation of a 12,000 sq.ft. restaurant in a general commercial zone located on the west side of Highway 111, 300 feet northwest of Painters Path. Mr. Diaz requested a continuance to give staff an opportunity to review the plans more fully. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. FRANK URRUTIA, architect, stated that in view of the fact that staff was recommending a continuance, he would like to defer his presentation and comments until then. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There was none offered. .� � Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner powns, to continue this case to May 15, 1984. Carried unanimously 5-0. D. Case Nos. C/Z 84-1, PP 84-3 and DA-3 - WESTERN COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, Applicants Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 to AHDPR-22, a precise plan of design, and development agreement and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 512 apartment units on 24.15 acres located on the south side of Country Club Drive, 1800 feet east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Drell gave the staff report and stated that the school impact fees and Fringe Toed Lizard fees are to be paid by the developer. The development agreement outlined the terms of the development. An additional condition was added to read: "Architectural commission shall review and attempt to provide architectural relief of linear nature of the perimeter buildings." Also, Condition No. 8 was to be amended as follows: "Applicant is granted a 10% parking modification as permitted by code subject to posting a $10,000 bond or letter of credit to cover potential future conversion of two tennis courts to parking areas as determined by the city. The bond or letter of credit shall be in effect for five years after the � total completion of the project." & � Letters received in opposition: Suncrest Country Club and Palm Desert Greens Association. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Crites asked staff about the traffic generated from this project and what measures would be taken for the median strip improvements. Mr. Drell replied that since Country Club Drive is a major arterial, as development occurs traffic will increase. The problem is restricted access to Country Club Drive and a -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 1984 solution might be to provide alternate access for the Palm Desert Greens residents. Mr. Drell added that the developers are required to make improvements on their frontage and as those improvements are made it should resolve some of the problems. Commissioner Crites asked what percentage of traffic would be generated on to Country Club Drive from this project. Mr. Drell replied that at peak periods as much as 5% and emphasized that Country Club Drive is a major street for the � entire Valley. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW, 82-811 Hwy 111, (LUIS KORIGAN, attorney, was available for any questions the commission might have) felt that this was a compatible site. He reviewed the plans of the project and letters of recommendation he distributed to commission. He requested that the school fees be waived or that the condition be amended to specify that the school fees would be for the Palm Desert High School only. Chairman Wood asked for input in FAVOR. There was none offered. Chairman Wood at this time took a count of the number of people to speak in opposition and because of a large number he suggested a recess be called to give the people an opportunity to select their spokesmen to present their issues. A RECESS WAS CALLED AT 9:08 P.M. - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:18 P.M. Chairman Wood called for those in OPPOSITION: BETTY SHEIDOW, 73-123 Low Mountain, Palm Desert, Secretary to Palm Desert Greens ,tlssociation, introduced a resolution by the Palm Desert Greens Association. She added that view obstruction, traffic impacts would �` be part of the problems arising from this project. EARL GRODEN, 73-450 Country Club Drive, Suncrest Country Club, stated that Mr. Befeld (owner of Suncrest) was never notified of this public hearing. It took 3 years to get left turn lane at Suncrest, Palm Desert helped but he was told that signalization near Portola was impossible. Density is too high for existing developments. ELAINE CRAVETTS, 73-889 Gum Circle, because a comment was made that this type of housing was needed for future employment to future developments (i.e. Marriott Hotel) she believed that hotel employees would not be able to afford these proposed apartments and also felt an area would be created that would lower the standards of Palm Desert. ARNOLD SILVERMAN, 73-771 Palm Desert Greens So., felt the issue of traffic impact was far greater than staff believes. Future developments on Country Club would certainly generate much more. The working people as identified for this type of housing would not be able to afford the high rent. ED NORTON, 38-354 Palm Desert Greens East, was afraid of the type of people this project would invite. He believed that because of the rental rates it suggests "blight". PANSEY SPEWES, 39-891 Palm Desert Greens Parkway, also did not feel �,,, COD students would be able to afford rents. On the issue of the Fringe Toed Lizard, she felt the lizard should not have to be moved just to suit the developer. The project will be very conducive to vandalism. She concluded stating this project is not compatible. ALEX SHARIF, 74-129 Zircon Circle, also addressed the traffic issue. He believed it would necessitate more police protection. -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 1984 DAVID E. MAGNE?, 73-265 Palm Desert Greens, believed that future development in that area was not being considered in terms of traffic and congestion. He felt the commission also had a moral obligation to those residents existing in the area as well as housing those in the future. Chairman Wood asked for the applicant's REBUTTAL. MR. DeLEEUW explained that the height limit of the project would be 25 � feet, minimizing the view impact. Traffic, he expects some residents to be � walking to and from some facilities in area. In regards to the possibility of "'� blight, a $25,000 bond will be posted for maintenance. Vandalism and security, full time security personnel will be available. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Richards noted that the last apartment building built in the city was 15 years ago. Commission is responsible to give people with entry level jobs a place to live and this project meets those needs. He added that many people cannot buy homes because they cannot afford to. Designations for these type of projects is not easy but he felt the site is compatible. In addressing the traffic problem he felt that after some streets are extended to I-10 part of the problem would be alleviated. He also felt the high crime rate residents are experiencing is unfortunate but this project would not affect that issue. He strongly felt that that area has been undeveloped and believed that this project is proposed in the right area would the first of more to come because of the need. Chairman Wood reiterated Commissioner Richards' comments. Commissioner Crites felt that the major issue was the traffic flow on Country Club Drive. A number of people felt the traffic flow studies were incorrect. He asked staff if it included all projections of traffic generated by other facilities in the area and if access would be controlled by the medians. Mr. Drell replied that the median would control ingress and egress for this project. The projection of traffic q' in the future from all the proposed projects on Country Club Drive, in the opinion � of the city engineer, would not adversely impact. Mr. Drell explained the process in which signalization fees are collected from developers for a fund; traffic engineering have counters at major intersections; if warranted monies are taken out from fund for traffic lights. As developments occur it is projected that lights will be at Portola and Country Club and Cook and Country Club. Mr. Diaz added that studies would be conducted for traffic and from those studies signalization where warranted would be established. The reason you cannot signalize too early is because there is a limitation of funds and it is a vital safety issue. In regards to landscaping and median problems on Country Club Drive, the city is requiring that the projects on the south provide for this but the projects to the north not within the city limits are not contributing. An assessment district could be established. Commissioner Richards asked staff to name the streets that would be extended to I-10 in the future. Mr. Diaz replied that Monterey, Portola and Cook (Palm Desert) would be extended to I-10. Other street extended east-west include Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. Mr. Diaz added that an assessment district would be established. Commissioner powns pointed out that some of the people who spoke tonight thought the rental rates were too high and some thought they were too low. Commissioner Crites felt that the traffic generated from this project would be „�j higher, but if a median is constructed, assessment district established, signalization at Portola and extensions of Cook and Monterey would mitigate traffic impacts. In regards to view obstruction, height limitation proposed is within city standards. Density, there are no aesthetic problems. As far as the fear of attracting the wrong people to rent, the city is requiring cash deposit to maintain the property, security personnel will be on hand at all times. Fringe Toed Lizard, he felt that the necessary habitat area is needed for them to live in and an area that will never -6- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 1984 be violated by human beings. Commissioner Erwood added that he was very familiar with the crime rate and his experience is that it is higher for the single family detached residents than apartments. He felt that with the amenities proposed for the project it makes it compatible to country club living. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve �, the findings as recommended by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Wood abstained). Moved by Commssioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner powns, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 947, recommending approval of C/Z 84-1, PP 84-3, and DA-3 to the city council, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Wood abstained). A RECESS WAS CALLED AT 10:08 P.M. - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:18 P.M. E. Case Nos. PP 84-5 and PMW 84-3 - TED MARTINEZ, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design, Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and parcel map waiver to consolidate the site into one lot to allow construction of a 28 unit apartment project (utilizing 25% density bonus allowed by state law) in the R-3 (Multiple family zone, one unit per 2500 square feet of land) located 225 feet south of the Highway 111 Frontage Road, between Deep Canyon Road and Shadow Hills Road. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to �, make a presentation. MR. TED MARTINEZ, 14032 Enderle St., Tustin, was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Richards noted that this proposal was thoroughly discussed at their study session and felt it was a good project. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 948, approving PP 84-5 and PMW 84-3, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 5-0. F. Case No. PP 84-6 - STEPHANOS KAPOROS, Applicant Request to allow construction of a duplex in a multifamily residential zone located on the south side of Candlewood Street, 144 feet west of Quailbrush Avenue. �,,,,, Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Richards asked what the size of the units were. Mr. Diaz replied about 1100 to 1200 sq.ft. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. -7- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY l, 1984 Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 949, approving PP 84-6, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 5-0. �f VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE X. COMMENTS Chairman Wood asked for the status of the date grove at the corner of Deep Canyon and Fred Waring. Mr. Diaz replied that a letter had been sent to Fern Stout that a date palm preserve committee had been established, with S. Roy Wilson as chairman. Chairman Wood asked for an explanation of the procedures for a site plan review. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adjourn the meeting at 10:36 p.m. � � � RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary ATTEST: �. ��f � ��-���e�K.�,.--, RALPH . WOOD, Chairman /lr � -8-