Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0605 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 5, 1984 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, AT 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER - 7:05 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Wood III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Downs Commissioner Erwood Commissioner Richards Commissioner Wood Chairman Crites Others Present: Ramon A. Diaz Barry McClellan Doug Phillips Stan Sawa Steve Smith Phil Drell Phil Joy Linda Russell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 15, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Downs, 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 May 24, 1984. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 84-1 - DONALD McMILLAN for TOP OF THE DESERT LTD, Applicant Request for 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. At the meeting of May 15, 1984, a tie vote resulted and therefore, the City Attorney Doug Phillips was asked to clarify the proper procedures on this matter. Mr. Phillips replied that on a tie vote the motion shall be lost with no action; it can be taken to city council for action, or, it can be reconsidered by planning commission. Chairman Crites reopened the public hearing. Mr. Joy reviewed the amended and added conditions to the draft resolution presented at the last meeting, and noted letters received in opposition since then were: City of Rancho Mirage, Margaret and Eugene Kay, Kay Craig, and a petition. Chairman Crites summarized the letter from the City of Rancho Mirage which requested two things: 1) constructions of a 30" high wall along the length of access road; 2) access to be off Painters Path rather than from Highway 111. Other letters in opposition stated concerns relating to visual and grading impact and general hillside development concerns. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 The validity of the petition received was questioned. It was pointed out that some of the signatures were from all over the valley, not just from Palm Desert. Mr. Joy noted that in the conditions added to the original draft resolution a change to the hours of delivery restriction to be from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. MR. DONALD McMILLAN in addressing the concern of the project being too much, pointed out that they are only using 2.5 acres, which is 19% of the total property. He also noted that the restaurant is in excess of 350 yards from the nearest residence. Other concerns were noise, light, and visual affects; he referred to the map and explained that tests showed the noise comes from Hwy III on to Desert Road. In regards to the concern of road cuts, he explained that Eonite does return the soil to its natural color. Elevations - He pointed out that the floor elevations of the restaurant would be 424 ft., parking lot would be 460 ft., therefore, it would not be above the hillside elevations. Lighting - he has agreed to restrict the parking lot lights to 8 ft. and provide vertical lighting. He also pointed out that in terms of grade, it would be a maximum 15%. He has agreed to construct the 30" screen on the access road. They are exceeding Caltrans requirements for ingress and egress off of Hwy 111, widening of bridge and installing signs. Bighorn -He referred to a letter received from Moller's Garden Center stating they have not sighted any Desert Bighorns in the past 12 years. In regards to zoning of the property, he pointed out that surrounding properties were all zoned commercial. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR. A show of hands was requested. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION: MR. DAVE ABRAMS, planning director of City of Rancho Mirage, reviewed the letter of the City of Rancho Mirage and requested approval of the two conditions suggested, one reading as follows: "Receive access from adjacent parcel, off of Painters Path." Commissioner Richards explained that access off of Painters Path would not be a safe access. Mr. Joy added that staff had studied the possibility of using access on Painters Path and concluded that the property would have to be purchased and use would be limited. He also stated that Caltrans has reviewed the project thoroughly and felt that with the widening of the bridge and a 5 ft. dedication it would be appropriate. Mr. Diaz added that if access was used off of Painters Path a problem of traffic backing up might occur. DR. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, asked what safety precautions would be taken for the possibility of boulders releasing and access road. Commissioner Richards believed that the cut would be into the rock. Mr. McClellan stated that if there is any fractured granite they would have to clear it up prior to grading be accepted as complete. A 5 MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:00 P.M. Chairman Crites asked if there was anyone else present who wished to speak. There being none, he asked if the applicant wished for a rebuttal. The applicant did not; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erwood asked staff to elaborate on the grading proposed in comparison to the grade at the wash on Portola Avenue. Mr. McClellan responded stating that there cannot be more than 20% to 25% at any part of the wash. It was clarified that the road to the restaurant would be at a 15% grade for 45% of the road. Commissioner Richards asked if the use was something other than a restaurant -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 would the process be similar to this one. Mr. Diaz explained that a precise plan approval would be necessary. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried 4-1 (Erwood voting Nay). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 952, subject to the modified conditions. Carried 4-1 (Erwood voting Nay), conditions were amended. B. Case Nos. C/Z 84-6, PP 84-15, do TT 20102 - WATT INDUSTRIES/PALM SPRINGS INC., Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-3 (planned residential, maximum 3 dwelling units per acre) to PR-5 (planned residential, maximum 5 dwelling units per acre), precise plan of design, tentative tract map, and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a 175 unit condominium project on 38.6 acres on the north side of Mesa View Drive, east of Alamo Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and indicated that the proposed project is located in the AO-3 flood zone and clearance from the public works department would be needed. Letters and a petition was received; the petition listed reasons for objection: objects to rezoning, traffic, possible high crime, high density. Staff felt the project is acceptable and recommended approval. It was noted a letter was received from David Garibaldi, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Henry Clarke who own property at Ironwood Country Club, which objected to density and tennis court lights. Chairman Crites asked staff to clarify a statement made in the staff report "under developed property is an eyesore". Mr. Sawa explained that in urbanized vacant property people tend to use the land as a dumping area. Commissioner Downs wanted further clarification on the flood zone designation. Mr. Sawa explained that it meant in case of flooding, 3 ft. of water can be expected. Mr. McClellan added that the Palm Valley Channel has been completed and are awaiting for a letter to redesignate the project area. Mr. McClellan further stated that there were stricter requirements under the AO-3 flood zone and did not believe the applicants intend to build under them, therefore, would wait until the letter from HUD was received. Chairman Crites asked if the hour of 10:00 p.m. can be restricted for the tennis court lights. Mr. Sawa replied affirmative. Chairman Crites asked if the project does meet city standards in terms of setbacks. Mr. Sawa replied that the standards require a 20 ft. setback but that requirement could be waived. Staff felt that in some cases 10 ft. setbacks would be acceptable, as in this case. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. SCOTT DORIUS, explained how they arrived at the design of the proposed project. He described the project and explained the proposed zone change and its density. He felt the project was well designed and requested approval. MR. PETE PITASSI, architect, explained the concept of the conversion of the storm drain to a decorative stream/waterfall element. The water element would utilize the easement and generate an amenity. Other issues he addressed were parking spaces, setbacks, and street design. MR. RON GREGORY, landscape architect, 74-301 Old Prospector Trail, gave a brief description of the landscape architecture of the project. He -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 noted that the tennis courts would be located directly across from the existing tennis courts for the project across the streets. Chairman Crites asked Mr. Diaz to explain what the legal options were in accepting or rejecting a project with a density that falls within the general plan designation. Mr. Diaz replied that they are limited to what they can deny or approve and specific concerns should be identified. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There were none. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION: MR. GENE DAVIS, 73-271 Riata Trail, stated his concerns were lighting from the tennis courts, traffic generated, flood hazards, and asked how far it was to the nearest residence. Mr. Sawa replied approximately 60 feet. MS. CATHY WILLIAMS, 73-341 Broken Arrow Trail, was concerned for flooding hazards because of the grading of the project, and felt her house would be in jeopardy. She was also concerned with the lighting impact. She noted that she did not receive a notice on the hearing. DR. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, listed his concerns as being: 1) No notice; 2) traffic; 3) sewer capacity; 4) drainage; 5) curbs & gutters on Arrow Trail; and, 6) exit on Alamo. MR. BILL GORDON, 73-330 Broken Arrow Trail, felt there would be a water flow problem once the proposed 6 ft. wall is constructed. DR. EUGENE KAY, 73-020 Homestead, had one concern -- density. MR. GENE KISS, 73-207 Riata Trail, lives 200 ft. from the project and stated his main objection is the proposed density of 5 units per acre. Other concerns were flooding and traffic. He asked for a clarification on the traffic flow, he felt there would not be an improvement. Chairman Crites summarized all the concerns and asked for staff to address them. Mr. Diaz addressed the concern for the 6 ft. wall; they can condition that the wall along the easterly boundary running north-south be constructed as phase I. Regarding noticing, the legal requirement for noticing is 300 ft., they also attempt to notify through newspapers and radio and encouraging applicants to speak with surrounding residents. Mr. McClellan called for the civil engineer to address the concerns expressed on the drainage and water flow problems, and grading. Mr. McCellan asked the civil engineer what affect the grading would have to the project on the east. MR. CHARCOAL, civil engineer, stated they are proposing on the east to depress the road about 2 feet lower so that the water runs down their street. He explained that the water flow coming from a 48" pipe under Mesa View Drive, they are proposing to continue the 48" pipe run beneath the channel changing it to a 54" pipe and have it exit where it does presently on Haystack. Mr. McClellan added that the applicant is responsible to take the storm drain to m Skyward and the city has funds set aside to take it from Skyward to under Haystack. If the developer does not take to it Skyward when it becomes necessary, then the city will, but also collect drainage fees from the developer. Mr. Charcoal explained that the storm drain pipe would be located below the ground and then the land on top would be depressed for the water element, which would drop approximately 60 feet from the north to the south. Mr. McClellan stated that in addition the developer is also required to retain the increased runoff when it rains. It would improve the drainage. It drains from west -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 to east but with this grading the perimeter road would collect the water and transport it back to the pipe. Mr. Charcoal noted they propose to grade and put all the storm drain at once. Curbs and gutter on Arrow, Mesa View, and Alamo will be constructed in the first phase. Commissioner Wood asked where the additional surface water from the project would flow to. Mr. Charcoal replied that there would be catch basins within the streets at all the low points. Mr. McClellan in addressing the concern for increased traffic, stated that a four lane street can handle much higher volumes of traffic than he anticipated for this project, and a traffic analysis (Condition No. 43) would be conducted to assure that there would not be problems. Mr. McClellan stated that the condition could read: "If deemed necessary by the city the applicant shall install curbs, gutter and tie-in paving on the east side of Alamo between Homestead and Bel Air." Commissioner Richards was concerned that residents would be using Alamo to get to their homes rather than using the entrance they propose. Therefore, felt Alamo should be widened. Mr. Diaz stated that they have to have substantial evidence to condition them to widen Alamo. Another option would be to use Alamo access for emergency exit only. Commissioner Downs asked Ms. Williams (Watt Industries) if they would be willing to widen Alamo if necessitated. Ms. Williams replied yes. Mr. McClellan in addressing the issue of water pressure, stated that Coachella Valley Water District always requires first class water systems. Mr. McClellan answered the question of sewer adequacy stating that the development would be required to put in 8" trunk sewers. Emergency access off of Arrow Trail was pointed out on the map. Mr. Diaz did not see the need for that emergency access and suggested that it be eliminated. Commission agreed. In regards to property value Mr. Sawa replied that the proposed price range is $159,000 to $179,000. In regards to the tennis court lighting impact, Mr. Sawa stated that the tennis courts elevations would be the same as the ones across the street. A condition could be added to require additional shielding. Commission agreed and added that the hour of 10:00 p.m. would also be restricted for use. Chairman Crites asked if the applicant wished for a rebuttal. MS. BETTY WILLIAMS, president of Watt Industries/Palm Springs, 75306 Stardust Lane, Indian Wells, stated that Dr. Bird did receive notice of this hearing and they met with him to discuss the project. She felt that his concerns were sufficiently addressed. She concluded with a brief description of the project and felt it would be a beautiful development. Chairman Crites closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wood did not feel there would be problems with this development and was well designed. Commissioner Richards did not like the project under the current density and felt it was not a good project. Chairman Crites asked staff if they were absolutely certain of adjacent properties not be subjected to potential flooding from this project. Mr. McClellan replied that this development would be mitigating and improving flood hazards that they have now to the west. -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 Chairman Crites asked staff if Commissioner Richards' comment on density being too high was sufficient grounds for denial. Mr. Diaz replied yes. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried 3-2 (Richards and Crites voting Nay). Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 953, recommending approval of C/Z 84-6, Planning Commission Resolution No. 954, approving PP 84-15, subject to conditions as amended, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 955, approving TT 20102, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-2 (Richards and Crites voting Nay). A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:20 P.M. C. Case Nos. PP 84-8, TT 20064 - PAUL A. FILING, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and one lot subdivision to allow construction of a six unit condominium project in the R-3 20,000 (3) S.P. (multiple family, 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, one unit per 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area, scenic preservation overlay) located on the east side of Ocotillo Drive, 260 feet south of Tumbleweed Lane. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. PAUL FILING, #3 Cueta, Rancho Mirage, described the design of the project. He received unanimous approval from the homeowners association. Chairman Crites asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wood asked if there had been any objections from residents in the area. Mr. Sawa replied there had not. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 956, approving PP 84-8, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 957, approving TT 20064, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 84-4 - JOHN R. HORNICK, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow conversion of a residence to a dental office in the R-2 zone located at 44-740 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Richards wanted to point out the significance of this request. He indicated that this project could be the beginning of other similar requests in this area. Chairman Crites asked if there would be a 6 ft. block wall on the east side of the property. Mr. Sawa replied that there would be. -6- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 Commissioner Richards asked if this permit would be for the sole purpose of the dental office. Mr. Sawa replied yes. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. AL COOK, 73-081 El Paseo, representative, felt this was an appropriate use for the location and noted it would have low traffic generation. He requested approval. Commissioner Richards asked what the owner intended to do with the swimming pool. Mr. Cook replied that he intended to keep it and use it for his own private use. Chairman Crites asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 958, approving CUP 84-4, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 5-0. E. Case No. C/Z 84-4 - STAN F. LITTLE, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-2 (single family, maximum one unit per 4000 sq. ft. of lot area) to R-3 (multiple family, one unit per 2500 sq. ft. of lot area) for 2 lots on the west side of San Rafael Avenue, approximately 220 feet north of San Gorgonio Way. Mr. Sawa gave the staff report and explained that because the city would be completing a study of the north side of Hwy Ill, which would indicate the city's needs, staff is recommending denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to reapply within one year, when the study is completed. Commissioner Downs felt that the applicant was willing to improve this property with his own money and did not understand why the staff would be recommending that he wait. Mr. Diaz pointed out that a change of zone would not do anything. Staff anticipates the study to begin very soon. This matter was fully discussed and it was understood that the study had not begun but would be a matter of months before it did. The study would determine if this change of zone request would fit into the general plan and needs of the city. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. STAN LITTLE, 72-668 Bel Air Road, explained that they are proposing one more duplex to existing duplexes. He felt they are improving and upgrading the property and the existing buildings. He requested approval. Chairman Crites 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 Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to continue this matter to June 19, at 2:00 p.m. in order to explore the possibility to allow the applicant to proceed with the requested zone change. Carried 4-1 (Wood voting Nay). F. Case Nos. PP 84-13, PMW 84-5, 6, 7 and 8, and associated Nelson -7- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 Development Agreement - NELSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan, Parcel Map Waiver, Development Agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of 10 fourplex buildings (40 unit) and one common pool/recreation facility on 11 existing lots totaling 2.31 acres within the R-3 and R-3 (3) zones generally located on the north side of Driftwood Drive, east of Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Drell gave the staff report and recommended approval. The applicant requested an amendment to Condition No. 14, to state: "...or as approved by director of public works." He noted a letter was received from the condominium development to the east in favor of this project. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. KEN NELSON, 48-800 San Isidro, LaQuinta, was present for any questions the commission might have. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Richards felt it was an excellent project. Commissioner Wood also felt it was well suited for the location. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 959, approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, PP 84-13 and PMW 84-5,6,7, and 8, subject to the conditions as amended, and recommending to the city council approval of the Nelson Development Agreement. Carried unanimously 5-0. G. Case Nos. C/Z 84-5, PP 84-12, do DA-4 - PALM DESERT PARTNERS, Applicants Request for a change of zone from service industrial to affordable high density planned residential - 18, construction of a two-story 104 unit apartment project and the associated development agreement, located south of the intersection of Hovley Lane and Beacon Hill. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and noted a letter was received from Mesa Development II, which are owners of property across this proposed project, and expressed concern of potential future problems and requested that future tenants be aware of their industrial park being developed in that area. Commissioner Downs was concerned with an automotive shop being located right across this project. Mr. Diaz pointed out that use of the lots across from this project may not necessarily be for automotive service. Chairman Crites asked if there was assurance that the affordable housing units be scattered. Mr. Joy noted that the development agreement states that the units must be mixed. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. -8- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 MR. ROBERT HOOTEN, 47-701 Desert Sage, pointed out that the affordable units are identical to their regular units and the locations may vary from time to time, depending on the need. He felt that there was adequate distance between the industrial park and this development and it would be noted in the rental agreement. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. w MR. ART FERRY, 25 El Torro, Rancho Mirage, of Mesa Development II, in addressing the issue of automotive use, stated that they might not use the lots for automotive but requested that they be recognized as service industrial; and their development, as it is completed, would be the finest such development in the Coachella Valley. Chairman Crites closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 960, approving C/Z 84-5, PP 84-12 and DA-4. Carried unanimously 5-0. H. Case No. PP 84-14 - MARSHALL L. MORGAN, Applicant Request for approval for the expansion of an existing mini- storage facility by adding ten structures totaling 74,100 sq. ft. of floor area and a negative declaration of environmental impact for property located at the northwest corner of Cook Street and 42nd Avenue in a S.I. ow zone. Mr. Joy gave the staff report and recommended approval with an added condition to read: "Defer undergrounding for 6 months to determine if underground assessment district can be formed. If district is not formed within 6 months, developer must proceed with undergrounding." Commissioner Richards asked why 6 months. Mr. McClellan replied that it would allow time for petitions to be received and it was a fair amount of time. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. HAROLD HOUSLEY, had several questions on the conditions; they were thoroughly discussed and clarified by commission and staff. Chairman Crites 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 Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 961, approving PP 84-14. Carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE -9- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1984 X. COMMENTS - NONE XI. ADJOURNMENT The commission adjourned the meeting at 11:38 P.M. ��- A RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary ATTEST: EUFO CRITES, Chairman if �yf too -10-