Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0305 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 5, 1985 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED Vf/ARING DRIVE � -� � * � � � � � � � � � � � � � � * � � � � � � � � � � � � * * A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM, AT 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER � The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Richards lead in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Buford Crites, Chairman Bob Downs Richard Erwood James Richards Ralph Wood Staff Members Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Patterson Stan Sawa A1 Cablay Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: „�,,, Request for approval for minutes of the February 19, 1985, meeting. Commissioner Wood requested that the following sentence be added to the comments under summary of council action: Commissioner Wood noted that the general Riverside rental rates were not comparable to the cove communities rental rates. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the February 19, 1985, minutes as amended. Carried 3-0-2 (Chairman Crites and Commissioner Richards abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Sawa reviewed the city council actions from its meeting of February 28, 1985. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. CUP 18-80 - RICHARD MILLER, Applicant Request for approval of a one year time extension for a 874 unit mobile home subdivision located at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Diaz felt that five years was sufficient time allowance. � Chairman Crites noted that no one present wished to remove the item from the consent calendar. Action: ' Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards to approve the consent calendar denying the time extension for Case No. CUP 18-80. Carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1985 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. CUP 84-8 and C/Z 85-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-1 to public and a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 15,000 square foot youth center located at the southwest corner of Rutledge Way and Magnesia Falls � Drive. Mr. Diaz explained that this request had been continued prior to the merging of the YMCA and Palm Desert Youth Center. He stated that staff was withdrawing the application with the provision that if any other type of facility for that site is proposed, discussion would be necessary with the Desert Sands Unified School District. B. Case No. DP 01-82 (Amendment #2) - CARVER MANAGEMENT CORP., Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved development plan for a shopping center to permit deliveries on the west side of the market on Saturdays in addition to the Monday through Friday deliveries already approved, for property zoned PC (2) (District Commercial Center) and located at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the request and indicated that staff was recommending denial of the request of seven deliveries on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He noted that two letters from residents had been received since the writing of the staff report. The letters indicated that the two residents would � agree to the winter hours of 10:00 a.m. thru 6:00 p.m. with a maximum of five deliveries during an eight hour period, and the summer hours of 9:00 a.m. thru 7:00 p.m. with a maximum of five deliveries during a ten hour period. Commission and staff discussed the staff recommendation and staff agreed that if the property owners and Carver Management find the terms outlined in the submitted letter acceptable, staff recommendation could be positive and suggested a trial period. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. SANDRA YAVITZ, Carver Management, stated that she had met with the neighbors and reached an agreement. She indicated that the hours in the letter submitted were acceptable. Commissioner Erwood asked Ms. Yavitz if the other affected residents were in favor of the hours. Ms. Yavitz answered that the owner of lot 17 agreed, but that the owner of lot 16 was opposed to the commercial development. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the case. MR. BOB RITCHEY, 40349 Sugarbush Court, owner of lot 13, stated that the main concern with Saturday delivery would be noise, which had been ,�,�;, mitigated at a previous meeting. He agreed that a trial period would be beneficial. Mr. Ritchey stated that the hours listed in his letter were acceptable. Commissioner Wood noted that in normal family neighborhoods Saturday is work day around the house. Mr. Ritchey agreed. Commissioner Wood indicated that there would be no Sunday deliveries. -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1985 Commissioner powns indicated that a trial period of one year had already been placed on the developer to mitigate noise. Chairman Crites asked if Mr. Ritchey had designated specific months for summer and winter. Mr. Ritchey had not at that time. Chairman Crites asked if anyone else wished to speak in regard to the project. "� Commissioner Richards asked that staff word the motion for Saturday deliveries. Mr. Patterson noted that refrigeration trucks have changed and noise on top of the roofs might create a problem. He felt that a condition of a one year trial period for tenants to come back would be acceptable with the protection for using the added wall height and landscaping. Chairman Crites stated that the Saturday deliveries could be stopped if there were problems. Commissioner Richards explained that is why the two issues should remain separate. Mr. Patterson then indicated that commission should specify the conditions and what they would apply to. Mr. Diaz noted that the motion should be to instruct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption approving the terms and time lines set forth in the communication received and that a six month trial period be in effect. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution for approval at the March 19, 1985, meeting. Carried 5-0. C. CASE NOS. GPA 85-1 and C/Z 85-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from Core Area �` Commercial to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone from C-1 (General Commercial) to HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto, for 13.1 acres, located on the west side of Highway 111, 200 feet northwest of Painters Path. Mr. Sawa reviewed the background of the case and the staff report. He indicated that staff was recommending that commission adopt the findings and resolution. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Patterson what the legal implications would be on such an approval. Mr. Patterson replied that the planning commission action would be an initial action which would require approval by the city council. He felt that the commission could deal with this item without concern about impact on the litigation. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the case. MR. RICHARD ROMER, counsel for Mrs. Mitchell, the property owner, and Mr. McMillan, stated that this was the one year anniversary for the start of the project. Mr. Romer indicated that bound by what the city does regarding the zoning and the impact on the lawsuit determined at that time, the court ruled on the city's motion to dismiss denying that motion and �,,,, affirming the fact that Mr. McMillan and Mrs. Mitchell have stated a cause of action for a taking of this property in the event that it is determined that there is no economic use of the property. He explained that the court went on to say that even if the property were rezoned residential, if that rezoning action is not economically feasible it can be considered a taking. He felt that the citizens voting on Measure E were not in favor of any type of building and asked the commission to seriously consider whether the rezoning to residential is not just delaying the inevitable and developing further problems by not having the proper use of this property. He indicated -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1985 that he was not just trying to set himself up for a lawsuit that would say you have taken the property, now pay us. He did not want to see his clients to go through another measure and election. He stated that he was not advocating a decision in favor of one way or another and if the commission could come up with a plan that was economically feasible, his clients' intent was to develop the property. He asked that the commission consider whether this is what the citizens want. � Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or � OPPOSITION to the case. Mr. Frank Little, 72-949 Bel Air, stated that he felt that the citizen's in the city who voted to pass Measure E would be opposed to any type of development and that it would detract from Palm Desert. He stated his opposition and felt that other people would also. MS. KAY CRAIG, 72-992 Bel Air, indicated that she was a 12 month resident. She stated that she was against any type of development and indicated that possible hillside slippage could be dangerous. She did not want to see Palm Desert become a little Hong Kong. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards noted that the applicant could have initially proposed a variety of types of developments. Mr. Diaz indicated that the applicants would still have had to go through the public hearing process. Commissioner Richards indicated that the hillside site was visible from many locations. Mr. Diaz noted that residential zoning requires different findings than a restaurant. Mr. Diaz noted that some voters might be opposed to any type of development, but stated that it could not be presupposed. He indicated that if a group of citizens try to put another issue on the ballot to stop any building on the hillsides, it would have `= to be considered. `'� Commissioner Richards asked about the possible impacts on adjacent hillside property owners and if rezoning would keep the zonings consistent. Mr. Diaz indicated that the zoning would have to conform to the amended hillside ordinance. Commissioner Erwood noted that the voters told the commission what they wanted the land to be rezoned as. Commissioner Wood stated that he could sympathize with Mr. Romer on whether the land would be developable or not. He felt that in this case the responsible thing to do would be to approve the rezone and move the case up to the city council. The attorney stated that at that time the city council could approve this. Chairman Crites indicated that the voters did not want commercial, but that nothing else could be presumed. 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, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1030, recommending to city council approval � of GPA 85-1 and C/Z 85-1. Carried 5-0. � D. Case No. ZOA 85-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Chapter 25, Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance) by adding a new code section which would prohibit development or use in commercial or industrial zones in hillside areas that are an average 10% or greater in slope. -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1985 Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and stated that the request was to add a code section which would prevent development or use in commercial or industrial zones. Staff recommended that the new amendment to the code be added as Section 25.56.480, Development or Use Restrictions in Commercial or Industrial zones. He stated that this change should not effect any existing development. Commissioner Richards noted that a large portion of the land affected was owned � by Mr. Moller and asked if he had been notified of this possible change. Mr. Sawa answered that Mr. Moller had not been notified. Commissioner Richards indicated that Mr. Moller might be affected by the change because he utilizes the land for potted plants on part of his hillside property and asked Mr. Sawa how steep the proposed ten percent would be. Mr. Sawa stated that Highway 74 has an average slope of six percent (6%). Commissioner Richards felt that Mr. Moller should have been notified. Commissioner powns suggested continuing the case pending notification. Commissioner Wood agreed. Chairman Crites indicated that the proposed change was a direct result of the election. Commissioner powns felt that out of courtesy Mr. Moller should be notified. Chairman Crites indicated that staff could contact Mr. Moller and visit the site and explain the uses to Mr. Moller. Mr. Patterson felt that would be acceptable. action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue the case to the meeting of April 2, 1985. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Wood abstained.) `�"'` VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. Chairman Crites felt the commission should entertain a minute motion for an initial consultation between staff and the College of the Desert to discuss a traffic st�dy regarding impacts from the cultural center, library, golf academy, hotel, etc. Commissioner Wood informed the commission that CVAG was presently studying the traffic problems and impacts on the Coachella Valley and asked if staff would be working the CVAG also. Chairman Crites indicated that this would only be an initial consultation, not the actual study. 2. Commissioner Richards asked about enforcement requirements for roof top signs. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to have Frank Allen give a report on status and actions of roof top signs. Carried 5-0. Chairman Crites asked Mr. Diaz about lighted signs in the city. Mr. Diaz answered that lighted signs are allowed. He mentioned that there had been some discussion regarding banning lighted signs in Palm Desert. 3. Commissioner Wood noted that at a previous city council meeting �; remuneration for planning commissioners was discussed. He asked Mr. Diaz what the status on that was. Mr. Diaz replied that staff was instructed to find out what other cities were paying their planning commissioners. A letter had been sent to the League of California Cities requesting that information. -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1985 IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. MR. VAN TANNER, Lot 40 owner in Sagewood, indicated that there would be an increase in traffic through the Sagewood development with the shopping center. He told the commission that there had been two accidents on Monterey and Country Club because of increased traffic. He also ; explained that he was concerned with the safety of the neighborhood � children and homes. He asked the commission to put something in writing to ' Carver conditioning them them to provide exits or cul-de-sac Sagewood � Drive. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Tanner if the Sagewood homeowners had a meeting on gating the property. Mr. Tanner replied that the gating was turned down in January, 1984, because of the cost. Mr. Cablay noted that if the street is gated, it becomes a private street which must be maintained by the homeowners. Mr. Tanner noted that the information provided by the previous board of directors was not complete. Mr. Cablay informed Mr. Tanner that the costs quoted to the board were for maintenance and noted that the streets were built on a ten year design. Chairman Crites suggested that Mr. Cablay arrange a meeting with Carver regarding these concerns and report back to the commission. Commissioner Richards was concerned about homeowners coming in after approval of a project and asking for additional conditions on the developer. Mr. Tanner replied that the problem was not caused by the homeowners. Commissioner Richards noted that this item was not discussed at either of the public hearings that were held regarding the project. He informed Mr. Tanner that he should discuss this item with the city council when the project goes to them for approval. v,� Mr. Diaz indicated that a traffic count could be taken now and when the center opens. If there is an appreciable increase, a private street could be considered. He noted that it could not be imposed on the developer at this time. Mr. Cablay stated that the count could be set up for speed also. Mr. Tanner stated that the cooperation between Silktree and Carver had been good. 2. MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon Drive, stated that at the last city council meeting he discussed the existence of a discrepancy between corner setbacks for residential and commercial property. He indicated that he would like to build a block wall on his property and would like the matter studied. 3. MS. PATTY POWERS MARTIN, 73-725 El Paseo, explained the background regarding the merging of the Family Y and the YMCA. She indicated that the city had allocated $200,000 for the site and for the Family Y, but did not know if that money was still available after the merging. Ms. Martin expressed concern for the number of children who go home after school to an empty house. She stated that from Lincoln School 60% go home to empty houses and from Palm Desert Middle School 75%. She felt that there was a need for child care in Palm Desert. She noted that the people who '� complained about the possibility of having a site by Palm Desert Middle � School did not realize that that facility would have been beneficial to keeping children off the streets and supervised. Mr. Diaz explained that this matter would have to be brought to the attention of the city council for action. He indicated that there were many alternatives for the use of that money, such as Ironwood Park. -6- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1985 Commissioner Richards stated that she should be present for the next city council study session, when the issue would be discussed. MR. TIM JOHNSON, 43-411 Portola, concurred with Ms. Martin. X. COMMENTS �• NONE. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner powns, to adjourn the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. �,., � � ;� � �'��:�.,,,,,s. � �. t ,,.,-�:T':> �'rv�iv'f'f�� RAMON A. DIAZ, Secre r ATTEST: ``_7 ,'' �� '` .;,.�- � � i ��--� ' - _�' �����. BU R . ��ITE , Chairman /t�' wwr. � -7-