Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0115 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 15, 1985 2:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * � � � � * � � � � � � * � � � � � * -� � � � * * � � -� � � � � A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEET'ING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM, AT 1:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER � The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Erwood lead in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Buford Crites, Chairman Bob Downs Richard Erwood James Richards Ralph Wood Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Ray Diaz Doug Phillips Stan Sawa Phil Drell Phil Joy Al Cablay Tonya Monroe � IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration for approval of minutes from the meeting of December 18, 1984. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the December 18, 1984, minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the city council from its January 10, 1985, meeting. Commissioner Wood noted that council discussed rental rates of $550.00 per month as not being affordable. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. DP 09-SO and 221 MF - WAT? INDUSTRIES/PALM SPRINGS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a six month time extension for a development plan and preliminary design review case to allow construction of a 117 unit condominium project in �... the PR-3 zone at the southeast corner of Homestead Road and Alamo Drive. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve this extension by minute motion. Carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 1985 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. PP 84-49 and TT 20434 - R dc B PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map, and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a 36 unit condominium project on 7.25 acres in the PR-5 zone (planned residential, +� maximum five dwelling units per acre) on property located on the south side of Country Club Drive, approximately 250 feet east of Sagewood Avenue. Mr. Sawa reviewed the background for the continuance of the case from the last meeting, gave an overview of the staff report, and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Commission discussed location and lot sizes. Commissioner powns inquired if there were any drainage problems. Mr. Cablay replied that at the rear, drainage is the same southeasterly direction. He indicated that the applicant would have to construct his part of the Master Drain Plan. Mr. Diaz noted that fire department provisions would be the responsibility of the fire marshal. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCARDI, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, explained that drainage had been addressed on the tentative tract map. He indicated that he would work with staff to have a retention basin and that only one place between the buildings did not meet 20 feet distance. Chairman Crites asked the applicant if he had any objection to a second pool. Mr. Riccardi replied no, but indicated that if a retention basin was used there would � not be adequate room. Mr. Sawa noted that an added condition could be added that an additional swimming pool be provided unless area is needed for retention basin. Mr. Cablay explained that public works would conduct a study before construction. Commissioner Richards expressed concern regarding the need of a second pool in the proposed location. Commissioner Wood asked if some units would be two story town houses. Mr. Riccardi replied yes. After discussion it was decided that a second pool was not needed. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or �OPPOSITION to this case. Hearing no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1022, approving PP 84-49, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1023, approving TT 20434, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. � B. Case Nos. GPA 84-3, C/Z 84-18, and PM 20560 -MONTEREY AVENUE ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential (3-5 du/acre) to district commercial for a 22.1 gross acres, a preannexation change of zone from W-2-20 (Riverside County zoning) to PC (2) (district commercial) for 22.1 gross acres and PR-5 (planned -2- MINU?ES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 1985 residential, five dwelling units per acre) for 66.76 gross acres, a parcel map to divide two existing lots into four parcels, and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to the above for 88.86 gross acres located at the future northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended adoption of the findings and �"' recommended approval of this case to the city council. He explained that the applicant wished to defer public works' conditions and that city council would have to permit that. Commissioner Richards asked about the street development status and assessment district. Mr. Cablay stated that Riverside County and Rancho Mirage were discussing construction starting later in 1985. He explained that the assessment district had not been totally finalized yet and that plans were under way. Actual construction could not begin until the end of the year. Chairman Crites inquired about a master plan for the appearance of the entrance from Interstate 10. Chairman Crites stated that he would not like spots of different zones in this area. Commissioner Richards felt the zoning should be commercial to Interstate 10 and explained that that was the way to deal with large parcels. Mr. Diaz pointed out that in terms of rezoning large sections to commercial, the commission had complete control of how the development was constructed. He felt that Monterey should be a first class highway with landscaped medians and explained that the city would have more control over commercial development. Chairman Crites felt troubled about zoning a parcel so far away from existing development. Commissioner Richards pointed out that the whole area was under one set of controls. Commissioner Wood concurred. � Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 74-091 Larrea, Palm Desert, the architect for the project explained that this 20 acre project would be similar to Hope Square in Rancho Mirage. He explained that this area could be a major commercial complex. He requested that public works' conditions be deferred except for the fringe-toed lizard fee. It was explained that the city council authorizes the deferring of conditions. Chairman Crites inquired as to the peculiar lines on the parcel map. Mr. Housley replied that these lines would allow parking structures for each parcel and indicated that they would not object to only creating two parcels conforming to the two zones requested. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. Commissioner Wood informed Mr. Housley that he would agree to a project of the quality of Hope Square. MR. LIONEL STEINBERG, 58th and Filmore, indicated that land owners � have been working with Caltrans and felt that a third of the traffic from Palm Springs would be deterred from Interstate 10. He explained that the Monterey and Frank Sinatra extensions would not be charged to the tax payer. He noted that he had 36 months to plan financing. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards noted that this was a well thought project and that this project has the largest piece of property. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 1985 Commissioner Wood asked for clarification as to what guarantees the commission had for future development if this project were approved. Mr. Diaz pointed out that the planning commission makes the decisions and the applicant would have to come to planning commission with plans. Action: `� Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to adopt the � findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2. (Chairman Crites and Commissioner Downs voting no.) '� Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1024, recommending approval of GPA 84-3, C/Z 84-18 and PM 20560 and deferment of public work's conditions. Carried 3-2. (Chairman Crites and Commissioner powns voting no.) C. Case No. C/Z 84-19 - HOLMBERG AND TONER, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and change of zone from R-2 to R-3 for three lots located on the west side of San Rafael Avenue between San Gorgonio and Catalina Way. Mr. Sawa explained that this case is consistent with the present proposed La Palma Village Specific Plan but recommended continuance until adoption of the proposed specific plan. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked for any comment from the applicant. There being none, Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. � �� MR. MICHAEL FIFE, 73-575 Catalina, owner of the adjacent apartments `� expressed concern regarding increased density and the negative impacts of � noise and traffic congestion. He indicated that single family residents adjoin the project. He noted that he had eight signatures of adjacent residents and agreed that the project should be continued. MS. VEE STEWART, 44-476 San Rafael, informed the commission that she was across the street for the proposed project and asked how many units per acre were allowed. Mr. Sawa replied 11 under the present zoning. Chairman Crites stated that this case would be continued to a meeting in March. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner powns, to continue this hearing until the La Palma Village Specific Plan is adopted. Carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. PP 84-48, PP 84-50, and PP 84-S1 - WITOLD MULLER, Applicant Request for approval of the construction of three separate triplex (three unit) residential structures located on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, between San Pablo and San Pascual Avenues. ':� Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. � Commissioner powns asked if this project fell under the La Palma Specific Plan. � Mr. Diaz replied yes, but pointed out that the applicant was not asking for a zone change. Mr. Joy noted that the addition of installation of sidewalks should be added to the conditions of approval. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 1985 MR. WITOLD MULLER, 167 Carrousel Lane, Huntington Beach, explained that he was asking for approval of the construction of three separate triplex residential units. Commissioner powns asked the applicant if he was aware of the possibility of what the change to R-3 would allow him if the zone were changed in the specific plan. The applicant replied yes. �+ Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. Commissioner powns inquired if there would be any problem if this project were approved and the specific plan were adopted; how would it effect potential developers adjacent to this project. Mr. Diaz replied that it would not present a problem. Commissioner Wood felt that the applicant should utilize the full potential of his land. Mr. Drell explained the relation between the one and two story zones in relation to this area. MR. MULLER stated that his was a quality project and that he was not worried about what would be developed adjacent to him. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner powns, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1. (Commissioner Wood voting no.) Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner powns, adopting +� Planning Commission Resolution No. 1025, approving PP 84-48, PP 84-50, and PP 84-51, subject to conditions as modified. Carried 4-1. (Commissioner Wood voting no.) E. Case No. PP 84-52 - MINI-MAX SELF STORAGE, Applicant Request for approval of a 150,000 square foot two story mini storage facility on 3.4 acres in a service industrial zone located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane. Mr. Joy outlined the request and recommended approval. Mr. Cablay stated that the assessment district originally planned for that area would not take place. Commissioner powns questioned the need for an eight foot meandering sidewalk. Mr. Cablay indicated that Marriott set a precedent by using the eight foot meandering sidewalk. Chairman Crites felt that the eight feet was too wide. Mr. Cablay replied that the sidewalk would be for pedestrians and bicycles. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. `�""" MR. RICHARD SINGLETON, 28910 Rancho California Road, Temecula, concurred with the presentation of the staff report. Commissioner Wood asked the applicant if he was prepared to install the eight foot sidewalk. Mr. Singleton replied yes. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 1985 Mr. Cablay noted that the following conditions should be added: 1. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. � 2. Dedication of appropriate right-of-way on Cook Street/Hovley shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. � � 3. Installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and sidewalk on Cook Street. 4. Sidewalk to be eight feet and meandering. Mr. Joy stated that the a condition relating to the payment of the fringe-toed lizard fees would also be added. The applicant concurred with all added conditions. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner powns, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1026, approving PP 84-52. Carried 5-0. F. Case No. CUP 84-13 - PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a commercial parking lot for use by PROTECTION ''� SERVICES (74-214 Highway 111) located in an R-3 (4) (multiple family, one unit per 4000 square feet of area) zone located on the north side of Alessandro Drive, approximately 140 feet west of Santa Anita Avenue. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. He indicated that the applicant would place a wood fence on the north side of the property because of the Palm Desert Water and Services District water line. Commissioner Wood suggested offsetting that portion by a block wall. Mr. Diaz stated that the commission could require a block wall and leave the option that staff had commission approval to put in a wood fence, if necessary. Chairman Crites suggested placing the wall in front of the property line and leaving the area between walls blank. Commissioner Erwood noted that this might create a maintenance problem. Commissioner powns asked if this would be similar to the Ace Hardware Store. Mr. Sawa replied yes. Chairman Crites noted that the gate design would be reviewed by the architectural review commission. Mr. Sawa confirmed this. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEONARD HENDERSON stated that he would have to place a block retaining � wall five feet high because of drainage and noted that the back portion of the parking lot could extend eight feet. He felt that there might be a problem with the end of the retaining wall. He informed the commission that the building of a safety exit could be landscaped. Mr. Diaz indicated that landscaping would not be necessary. Mr. Cablay stated that he would resolve this with the applicant. -6- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 1985 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 Richards, to approve the findings as presented by staff. � Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1027, approving CUP 84-13, subject to conditions as amended. VIQ. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. Case Nos. PP 13-83 and TT 19575 - J � J INVESTORS, Applicant Clarification of approval period for five unit condominium project on east side of San Rafael Avenue, 270 feet south of Catalina Way. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to clarify approval period as recommended by staff. Carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 01-82 - J.P. CONSTRUCTION, INC., Applicant Approval of a minor modification to allow outside storage and changes in a parking lot area for an existing 11,800 square foot industrial building on the north side of Mayfair Drive, east of Green Way. Action: +�.. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to approve modification by minute motion. Carried 5-0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PATRICIA POWERS asked for approval of Case Nos. PMW 84-4 and PMW 85-3. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, secand�ed by Commissioner Wood, to aoprove PMW 84-4 and PMW 85-3 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. X. COMMENTS A. Commissioner Wood expressed concern regarding projects being approved in the La Palma Specific Plan district before the report from that committee was completed. B. Mr. Diaz discussed setting a date for a joint city council/planning commission session. The commission felt any Friday would be acceptable except for January 25, 1985. The commission noted that a two week advance notice would be appreciated. XI. ADJOURNMENT �"i" Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner powns, to adjourn the meeting. Carried 5-0. %` % The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m. � `.� �;',! � l�s►������• o�'"�� .�--�. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secre ATTEST: , � �- .- � : , � � .-� �, ___ ,... _ - -- - - �, � , �, ,'��_,� - _ � ��. � �__ �, � , � z_- � � _ BUF RD CRITES, Chairman � /tm -7-