Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1120 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 20, 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 1:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 2:06 p.m. H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs lead in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Buford Crites Commissioner Bob Downs Commissioner Jim Richards Commissioner Wood Members Absent: Commissioner Rick Erwood Staff Present: Ray Diaz Doug Phillips Stan Sawa Phil Drell Al Cablay Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the October 30, 1984, meeting. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the October 30, 1984, minutes. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized the actions of the council from the meeting of November 8, 1984. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 84-17 - THE LAKES COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of waiver requirement to allow a lot line adjustment between two parcels within the Lakes Country Club. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the consent calendar. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 84-11, PP 84-31, and TT 20351 - WESTAR ASSOCIATES, Applicants Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, change of zone from PR (6) S.P. (planned residential, maximum three dwelling units/acre) to PC (3) S.P. (regional commercial, scenic preservation overlay), precise plan of design and eight lot subdivision to MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1984 allow construction of a commercial shopping center containing 128,100 square feet of floor area on 12.5 acres of land bounded by the Palm Valley Storm Channel, E1 Paseo, Painters path, and Highway 111. Mr. Diaz reviewed the main points of the staff report and recommended approval of this project. He indicated that if the project was not approved, the general plan should be amended. ..rt Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification regarding the original zoning. Commissioner Richards felt that the general plan did not need amending. Mr. Diaz replied that if the development is not acceptable, commission must state why. Chairman Crites commented on the traffic circulation report and the negative response. Mr. Diaz indicated that the initial response was for fast and safe traffic through Highway 111. Mr. Cablay replied that the issues addressed E1 Paseo and indicated that there would not be any split phasing. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES CENCIBAUGH, Ahmanson, agreed with the staff report and indicated that a favorable reply was obtained from the architectural review commission. MR. GREG SIMON, gave a presentation comparing the types of shopping. MR. PETER KOETTING, Westar, discussed design and gave a slide presentation. MR. DON BARKER, Linscott and Greensbaugh, spoke regarding delivery to •• the project and traffic volume. MR. ROGER CESSESON, Mervyn's, explained that Mervyn's was not a discount store and explained that it ranged between J.C. Penny and May Co. MR. PAUL BOSMAN, Mervyn's architect, spoke regarding the project. Chairman Crites asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. MR. KEITH RICHARDSON, president of the Sandpiper Homeowners Association, thanked the commission for continuing the project until this meeting. He spoke in opposition to the project and indicated that 118 letters were submitted in opposition. He had petitions with 500 signatures of which half were not Sandpiper residents. Commissioner Downs asked Mr. Richardson to read the petition. MR. ED CASHIN, 1501 Sandpiper, expressed concern regarding the exterior of Mervyn's and gave an analygy using KMART. MR. BOB POLLOCK, 1504 Sandpiper, spoke about the aesthetics of the project and asked that the zoning remain residential. He felt that the large parking lot required for this project would not be attractive. MR. BILL TRIPLET, 612 Sandpiper, represented 29 members of unit 6. He felt that a better site could be selected for this project, and that there would be problems with the ingress and egress. He expressed concern for speed of traffic already on El Paseo. He felt that Mervyn's was a good store, but that there were too many traffic difficulties. Commissioner Wood commented that public works did not feel the traffic problems were insurmountable. Mr. Triplet disagreed. -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1984 MR. WILLIAM TENNISON, Palm Desert Property Owners Association, indicated that the board of directors were concerned about traffic congestion at Highway Ill and suggested a long-range traffic study before any more projects are approved. MS. DAPHNE TRIPHON, 1713 Painters Path, felt that the project would have a negative impact on the surrounding homeowners. MR. CENCIBAUGH addressed the concerns. He explained that signalization would help. Mr. Koetting felt that the right-turn only access to the project on El Paseo would eleviate some problems and felt that the others could be resolved. Commissioner Downs asked what the revenue would be from the project if developed. Mr. Koetting indicated between $10-15 million. MR. DON STAGE, 1313 Sandpiper, indicated that the residents of Sandpiper were against the rezoning of this property, not Mervyn's. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and asked the commission for comments and/or action. Commissioner Wood indicated that while there would always be traffic problems, the voice of the people should be heard. Commissioner Downs explained that even though the city would be losing $300,000 in tax revenues a year, he would vote in opposition. Chairman Crites commended the applicant on a good job done, but explained that a project must get along with the adjacent properties. He felt that there were enough signal lights on Highway 111 and would be opposed to any projects requiring a signal light on Highway 111. Chairman Crites indicated that the findings for the resolution of denial should state traffic, aesthetics, endangerment to health, welfare, and safety as reasons for the denial. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the findings of the commission, to be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Diaz recommended amending the general plan to conform with this motion and indicated the support of the city attorney. A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 4:36. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff did not want the city taken to court for not changing the general plan to conform. Motion by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to instruct staff to begin preparation to change the general plan. Carried 4-0. B. Continued Case No. PP 84-40 - HOTEL PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 129 room hotel on 2.97 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 285 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1984 MR. GEORGE HOLGUIN, architect, expressed agreement with the findings of the staff. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. Hearing no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1008, approving PP 84-40, subject to conditions. C. Continued Case Nos. DP PP 84-37 - PAUL MADISON, Applicant (Amended request.) Approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow development of nine apartment units on .65 acres in the R-2 zone (with a 25% affordable housing density bonus) located at the southwest corner of San Pascual and Santa Rosa. Mr. Diaz gave a presentation of the staff report and recommended approval of the amended project. Commissioner Richards indicated that he would like to know the amounts involved if option b or c were used, which were reductions in fees, or cash. Mr. Diaz explained that rental units present a problems with settling a cash fee. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission and asked him if he would accept option B or C. MR. PAUL MADISON, representing Mr. Carroll, could not answer for the applicant. He explained that Mr. Carroll was encouraged by the affordable housing. Commissioner Richards felt that the language suggested a barter arrangement and indicated that these matters be investigated. Chairman Crites suggested continuing this case until staff could present option B and C. MR. MADISON indicated that he would like the case settled with either approval or denial. A THREE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 5:08 p.m. Commissioner Richards indicated that he would like all options to be presented in the future for all appropriate projects. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. Hearing no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Richards abstained.) Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1009, approving PP 84-37 as revised. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Richards abstained.) -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1984 D. Case Nos. PP 84-44 and PMW 84-16 - WILLIAM SPENCER, 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 an eight unit apartment project (utilizing 25% density bonus allowed by state law) in the R-2 zone ftow located on the north side of Santa Rosa Way, 200 feet west of San Pascual. Mr. Diaz reviewed the salient points of the staff report. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BILL SPENCER, Palm Desert, explained his proposal. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. Hearing none, Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Richards abstained.) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1010, approving PP 84-44 and PMW 84-16. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Richards abstained.) E. Case No. PP 84-45 - COACHELLA VALLEY TV, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 20,650 square foot industrial/administration building on 2.92 acres in the S.I./S.P. (service industrial district with a scenic preservation overlay) zone located on the west side of Cook Street, approximately 650 feet north of 42nd Street. Mr. Diaz explained the staff report and recommended approval. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN OUTCAULT, architect, asked for and received clarification on several conditions. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. Hearing none, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. tow Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1011, approving PP 84-45, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. PP 84-20, FRANK GOODMAN, Applicant Request for review of the development agreement for property located on the north side of Candlewood, 150 feet east of Portola Avenue. -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1984 Mr. Diaz explained that this item was returned for comment by the city council. Commissioner Richards felt that granting dispensation after a project had already been developed was setting a bad precedent. Commissioner Wood felt that since the request was so small that it was acceptable. Chairman Crites agreed with Commissioner Richards regarding setting a bad precedent. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving Planning Commission Resolution No. 1012, stating that it would be a dangerous precedent to set. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Wood voted nay.) B. Case No. TT 19503 - GEORGE FOX, Applicant City Council referal of request for approval of a development agreement and an amendment to a tentative tract map for 58 lots for 97 acres within the HPR, D zone located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel, north of the Palm Desert Community Center. Mr. Diaz explained that this agreement was referred back to the commission for action. He also presented a proposed amendment in the form of a letter from the applicant that would identify one lot (lot 30) in the phase II areas. Chairman Crites expressed concern regarding the split tract map and asked if option 4 was legitimate and if #2 and #3 would be guaranteed. Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant was allowed 16. Chairman Crites asked if the commission had to give the applicant 16 units. Mr. Diaz replied yes. Chairman Crites suggested that #4 include "the applicant concentrate development on less visible lower slopes." Commissioner Wood indicated that phase I is on the lower slopes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the development agreement with the understanding that additional units in the phase II area may be precluded if applicant could not demonstrate that said units could be developed in compliance with the city's hillside regulations. MR. ALAN PERRIER, 3001 Tacquitz McCallum, indicated that he felt that the city had the protection it needed. He suggested amending the resubmitted agreement to incorporate the changes suggested, with the proposed revisions. Mr. Diaz felt that with the proposed revisions the city was receiving an acceptable safe guard. Mr. Perrier indicated that units located in phase II that were not acceptable would be lost, not relocated in phase I. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, that the 29 units that would be permitted as part of option 4 calculations might have to be ' located in the phase I area. If they could not be developed within the hillside regulations then the applicant would have the option of giving up said units or placing them in the phase I area. Carried 4-0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE. -6- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1984 X. COMMENTS Chairman Crites suggested that developers should try to keep their presentations under one hour. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adjourn *Now the meeting. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. to "MON A. DIAZ, Secre ATTEST__ BUFOR..D CR TES, Chairman AM -7-