Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0717 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 17, 1984 2:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM, AT 1:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Erwood called the meeting to order at 2:12 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Wood III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Downs Commissioner Richards Commissioner Wood Vice Chairman Erwood Excused Absent: Chairman Crites Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Doug Philips Stan Sawa Phil Drell Phil Joy Al Cablay Linda Russell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 3, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the minutes as submitted. Carried unanimously 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION - NONE VI. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the planning commission or audience request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. A. Case Nos. CUP 04-81 and 150 C - ROMEO PULUQI, Applicant A request for approval of a one year time extension of a conditional use permit and architectural commission to allow the addition of 832 sq.ft. of dining area to an existing restaurant on .38 acres within the C-1, S.P. (General Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, located at 73-340 Highway 111. Rec: Approve extension to June 30, 1985. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the consent calendar item as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 4-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 84-5 - HOUSLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. Applicants Request for approval to allow a use of an existing structure for a professional office in a multiple family residential zone located on the south side_pf Larrea, 135 feet west of Lantana. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 1984 Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's presentation. MR. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 74-091 Larrea, stated he understood all the conditions of approval and concurred. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 972, approving CUP 84-5 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. PM 16258 Amendment #1 - CARMA DEVELOPERS INC., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to allow consolidation of a recorded tract (4489) into 2 lots on a 28 acre site in a resort commercial zone located on the south side of Fred Waring Dr., between Hwy Ill and Painters Path. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's presentation. MR. DAVE WAGNER, representative, noted that some conditions were clarified and amended by the public works department and asked for Mr. Cablay to review those amendments. Mr. Cablay reviewed those conditions: #4 delete the words "and signalization (this was deferred until there's an approved site plan). #12 delete condition #13 Amend entire condition to read: "Limits for reconstruction of the existipg improvements and installation of sidewalk on Painters Path and Fred Waring Dr. as determined by the director of public works; or installation of curb and gutter at 20 feet from centerline, matching paving and sidewalk on Painters Path including sidewalk installation on Fred Waring Dr. contingent upon the vacation approval of 14 ft. on Painters Path by the city council." #19 delete condition Commissioner Wood asked if the applicant agreed to all those changes. Mr. Cablay answered yes. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. ERWOOD SHATZMAN, Senior Vice President of Carma, stated some concerns expressed by commissioners was the design of the overall property and their intent was to meet all the CC&R's and assured commission they would be reviewing any and all site plans on this parcel. Commissioner Richards was concerned with the rationalism of splitting up the -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 1984 parcels and wanted to see a development plan to include all items for future improvements. Mr. Shatzman replied that the parcels would be connected by an easement and their concern would be for both parcels. The will attempt to do the best job possible to develop the property as a whole for everyone's best interest. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wood agreed with Commissioner Richards' concern about splitting up the parcels. He asked if they could legally deny this request without findings. Vice Chairman Erwood explained that the findings for approval had to be supported by evidence on the part of the applicant. Commissioner Richards felt that without a proposal to look at they could not possibly determine if those findings are met or not. Vice Chairman Erwood summarized the feelings of the commission and stated that because of the vagueness of the proposal it makes it impossible to determine if those findings are correct. Mr. Shatzman requested that a condition be added to address that concern or a 30 day continuance be given. Mr. Diaz indicated that a continuance would be in order to allow the applicant to come forth with a concept plan, that plan would not be necessarily before commission for a public hearing but a resolution would state the parcel would be developed to be consistent with that concept plan. This would be put in a form of a condition of approval. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this case to August 21, 1984, to give applicant opportunity to present commission with a concept development plan. Carried unanimously 4-0. C. Case No. PP 84-18 - JAMES SATTLEY, Applicant A request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a six unit apartment complex in the R-2 (4) zone (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per 4000 sq.ft. of lot area) on a lot approximately 24,100 sq.ft. located at the northeast corner of San Pablo Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's presentation. MR. JAMES SATTLEY, 74-050 San Marino, felt these units would be affordable and a real asset to the city. Vice Chairman Erwood noted staff's recommendation to redesign the rear parking lot area for sufficient turnaround and asked the applicant if he concurred. Mr. Sattley did not believe it would be a problem. r Mr. Sawa explained the only thing that would have to be changed would be the location of the trash enclosure. Vice Chairman Erwood 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 -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 1984 the findings as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 973, approving PP 84-18, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 4-0. D. Case Nos. PP 18-83 and TT 19576 (Amendment #1) - HARMONY HOMES j and J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, Applicants A request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved precise plan of design and tentative tract map to delete a fire station site and add 9 dwelling units to a 264 unit residential project in the PR-7 zone located at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Sawa briefly reviewed the background for this project and indicated these were the last permitted units on the site. Staff Recommended approval. Commissioner Downs asked if there would be any traffic fees. Mr. Sawa stated those fees were already included on the original plan approval. Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's presentation. MR. HAROLD HEERS, 69-278 Tamalock, Cathedral City, explained the design of the amended plan. He questioned the five minute fire department response and stated he was surprised about the fees. Mr. Sawa stated that the property is outside the five minute response area and by ordinance fees have to be paid. Commissioner Richards asked what the price range would be for the units. Mr. Heers replied approximately $84,950 to $109,950. Mr. Heers also explained the concept and design. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wood agreed to the adjustment, he felt it would increase the open space area. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 974, approving PP 18-83 (Amendment #1), and Planning Commission Resolution No. 975, approving TT 19576 (Amendment #1), subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. CUP 84-1 - DON McMILLAN - Review of environmental issues for CUP for 12,000 sq.ft. restaurant in the C-1 zone located on the southwest side of Highway 111, 300 feet northwest of Painter's Path. Commissioner Wood asked staff to explain the meaning of CEQA. Mr. Diaz explained that the California Environmental Quality Act was adopted in 1970. Some guidelines were needed and in approximately 1974 the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was required. Subsequently, the -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 1984 requirements of an EIR have been refined and if a significant impact can be mitigated then a negative declaration can be substituted. Determination of those impacts still have to be made. Photographs were distributed to commission by Vice Chairman Erwood of the site and it was not decided yet whether it would be necessary to visit the site or not. Commissioner Downs asked if staff had any changes to the report since the last two hearing. Mr. Diaz replied no and determination of a negative declaration or EIR was still in order. Commissioner Downs asked if any core drilling was done. Mr. Diaz replied no. Commissioner Richards felt public testimony was not necessary at this point in time. Vice Chairman Erwood explained that since they would be going through the items on the EIR, the applicant or someone else that might have input or insight to these issues. Commissioner Wood clarified that council had some specific concerns of the EIR and those concerns were brought back to commission for review. He recommended that the commission go out to the site to give them a better look of what is there. Commissioner Richards asked if the scale model was still valid. Mr. Diaz replied yes. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if the road grade on the model is proportioned to show 45% of road would be at 15% grade. Mr. Joy replied yes. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 3:30 P.M. Vice Chairman Erwood indicated that the applicant had provided some large colored photographs that indicate some similar type of developments and structures to be incorporated onto hillside and similar road construction grade. Mr. McMillan added that his restrictions on the road leading to the restaurant were more restrictive than those indicated on the photos. He also talked to the owners of the 3 developments and only one accident had occurred to their knowledge in a total of 22 years (total of all three restaurants opened). MS. JEAN BENSON, 74-611 Shadow Hills Rd., stated she had been a resident of Palm Desert for 12 years, has been a former planning commissioner and councilwoman. She was concerned that there were many issues that still needed to be brought forward and suggested a full environmental impact report be done. She also felt there were many people who were not aware of this project as yet. She concluded that there were too many unknowns and if they proceed with this development it could open a Pandora's box for other developers. Mr. McMillan felt this project was thoroughly researched, reviewed, and designed by competent people. Mr. Drell was asked to review the zoning in that area and how it came about to its present zoning. This was discussed by commission and staff with Commissioner Wood noting that land cannot be frozen from development if it is developable. VAW At this point, Mr. Joy was asked to review one by one, the initial study checklist items giving justification for each answer to "no". (NOTE: A verbatim transcript was produced for this case and is in file with department of environmental services). The main issue discussed was the Item 16e--Transportation/Circulation, traffic -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 1984 hazards increase. It was felt by Vice Chairman Erwood that this should have a check marked "yes". Caltrans has imposed some conditions to mitigate that impact but an additional mitigation measure was suggested by Commissioner Richards and staff to read: "A median or other device shall be installed to eliminate ingress and egress left turns from and to the restaurant, and the city shall have the right to review the project for safety reasons." Items 25 a through d: This was clarified by the city attorney that if one item had a yes checked than an EIR would be in order. But in order to mark a yes it must be determined that there is in fact an impact that cannot be mitigated. A focused EIR then can be required. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to recommend to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact for CUP 84-1, with an amendment to the initial study: 16e to be check "yes" rather than "no'; and, a condition to mitigate 16 E to be added to read: "A median or other device shall be required on Highway III to prevent left turn ingress and egress to the site." Carried unanimously 4-0. B. NEUFELD INVESTMENTS - Review of senior residential housing project on the north side of Country Club Drive, west of Cook Street. Commission discussed this item during study session and recommended that the applicant proceed with proposal. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE X. COMMENTS - NONE XI. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Erwood adjourned the meeting at 5:07 P.M. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary ATT 'r R AR E OD, Vice Chair an Ar -6-