Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1015 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 15, 1985 2:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED HARING DRIVE a... NO STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING. I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairman Richards called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Wood lead in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Buford Crites, Chairman (arrived at 2:34 p.m. ) Bob Downs J i m Richards Ralph Wood Members Absent: Richard Erwood low Staff Present: Ray Diaz Doug Phillips Dick Folkers Stan Sawa Phil Drell Phil Joy Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of minutes from meeting of October 1 , 1985. Commissioner Wood requested a clarification of his statement on page 9, paragraph four. Mr. Diaz indicated the changes requested by Chairman Crites. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the minutes of October 1 , 1985, as amended. Carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz and Commissioner Wood summarized the action of the council at its meeting of October 10, 1985. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 moo VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No's. TT 18966 b HDP 01-83 - ROBERT MAINIERO, Applicant Request for eighteen month time extension of tentative tract map and hillside development plan on 33 .4 acres located west of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park, north of Cat Creek debris basin. Mr. Diaz outlined the request and history of the parcel and explained that the request was for over one year because the extension would be effective as of September (retroactive) . Acting Chairman Richards recommended that in future it should be noted in the staff report who the developer is and if there has been any change. Staff indicated compliance. Commissioner Downs asked the city attorney if it was permissible to vote with three commission members present. Mr. Phillips concurred. Commissioner Wood asked if it was the first request. Staff concurred. Mr. Diaz noted that the extension would begin from September 7, 1985. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, approving TT 18986 and HDP 01-83 by minute motion. Carried 3-0. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP 85-9, 1ST BANK OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Approval of an amendment to a precise plan of design to allow use of a temporary bank in the C-1 S.P. zone (general commercial district with a scenic preservation overlay) on .85 acres located at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Highway Ill . Mr. Sawa outlined the request and recommended approval of the temporary facility subject to the conditions. 2 mow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 Acting Chairman Richards requested and received clarification the access from Monterey and the alley. Commissioner Downs asked if the road name would be Alessandro. Mr. Diaz replied that he did not know at that time. Commissioner Wood asked if the bank entrances would also be temporary. Mr. Sawa indicated that the entrances would be permanent for the temporary building. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Folkers if he had evaluated the situation and asked for his opinion. Mr. Folkers replied that if temporary or permanent, it presented no problems. Commissioner Wood asked on what type of foundation the temporary building would be on. Someone from the audience replied that it would be on wheels. Acting Chairman Richards noted that few people are allowed to use temporary structures and didn't see a particular problem in this case. CHAIRMAN CRITES ARRIVED AT THIS POINT. Commissioner Richards opened the public testimony. MR. ROGER REISHER, 74-629 Arroyo Drive, explained that he was NNW with the parent holding company and outlined who was in attendance at the meeting with him and stressed that everyone had been working on the project for over 12 months, working to achieve a high standard aesthetically, as well as street realignment, and two-way traffic on the frontage road. He indicated that part of the delay was created by Caltrans regarding the realignment of the frontage road, but felt that it would be granted within two weeks. He indicated that initially he had planned to build the street on the east and north and the south Highway III turning lane to be done at once, but with the delays from Caltrans - the idea of phasing was developed. He emphasized that he was anxious to have the permanent building built and noted that the full rental fee was beginning now. He indicated that the entrances would be a permanent part of the parking lot as originally approved. He felt that the temporary building would be for a short-term and would be attractively landscaped. He also noted that the telephone poles would be undergrounded. He stated that he was aware of the value of the site and indicated his wish to have the permanent bank facility open for the next season. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States, went to the wall plans and explained what was proposed. He showed the commission where the utilities and cables would be located for the project, which would take three to four months to install . He stated that striped, reflective K-rail would be installed between poles on "A" street and noted that two lanes of traffic would be kept open. He also explained the work that would be done during each particular phase. Chairman Crites asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the case. MR. CHARLES MILLER, presented a letter to the commissioners regarding First Bank, along with a petition. He spoke against a temporary building using the Bank of Palm Desert as an example and was specifically against the exit onto Monterey. He indicated that he would be in favor if all the road work was completed first. He asked about curbs and gutters. Mr. Folkers replied that he could look at the plans in the public works department. Mr. Miller felt the city had no business permitting a temporary building since no plans had been submitted to the building department. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Miller what his specific objections were besides access onto Monterey. Mr. Miller also stated the undergrounding the poles and the completion of the street onto Highway Ill . He indicated that they could not get the two-way street until this was done and noted that it had been six months. He explained that they were only waiting for the cut to be made to Highway Ill . Commissioner Richards spoke regarding getting something done to the frontage road, explained that this is an old piece of property with many discussions, and felt that Mr. Miller's most valid comment is the validity of opening a temporary office. Commissioner Richards did not feel that the hold up from the utility companies was a valid reason for not permitting a temporary office building. Commissioner Richards felt that it would be putting a severe hardship on the applicant to request that everything be done prior to opening the bank. Mr. Miller explained that nothing has been done - not even plans being submitted to plan check. Mr. Miller asked how the commission could grant a temporary building without any plans being submitted to the city. Commissioner Downs asked if public works had any plans submitted by the applicant. Mr. Folkers replied that they had the street plans as noted earlier and he asked that copies be brought over from his department. Commissioner Downs asked if the plans could be submitted 4 rr% MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1995 �r.. to the building department prior to the streets being straightened out. Mr. Diaz replied that they could. Mr. Diaz noted that the trash enclosure should be deleted from the plan (which was not on the permanent plan) and requested that the final location of the trash enclosure be approved by staff. MR. RICK HOLDEN, 73-330 EL PASEO, spoke to the submittal of the plans. He indicated that complete sets of working drawings and specifications for the main building (bank) were submitted to architectural review for approval of final working drawings at their next meeting. He stated that the exits were approved by the Caltrans commission on the first day and noted that the only thing the applicant has no right to do is the cut into Highway 111 . He explained that in regard to the temporary bank, it is a different situation. He stated that since the developer is installing many improvements involving time and money, it would not be likely that he would leave. He noted that the exit on "A" street was the same as approved by the frontage road committee and the planning commission previously. Mr. Oliphant explained that the road would be two-way from Las Palmas on and that the permit from Caltrans would be for approval for the entire frontage road. He noted that all frontage road work ... hinges on the applicant's ability to get approval from Caltrans, which would also be creating the permit for the city. Commissioner Wood asked who has been working with Caltrans. Mr. Oliphant replied Mr. Foust. Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification that preliminary approval had been received from Caltrans. Mr. Reisher stated that he had a letter from Caltrans dated September 26 which he would present to the commission after obtaining copies. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Chairman Crites asked staff about the large canopy shade trees being provided for parking lots on all public projects. Mr. Diaz noted that the applicant has received preliminary architectural commission approval . Mr. Diaz asked the applicant if those trees could be provided on the final drawings. The applicant replied yes. Chairman Crites asked about the issue of providing art in public places and asked what had been done. Mr. Diaz replied that this project had been approved prior to the issue of art in public places and indicated that it would not apply. He noted that no further 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 discussion on the matter had taken place. Commissioner Richards indicated that he felt the issue should be discussed by the planning commission to make sure everyone was in accord prior to requiring it to be done. Chairman Crites replied that it could be discussed at a joint meeting and felt that it was time to proceed either in favor or against having such a program. Commissioner Richards stated that in moving for approval he felt that it was a difficult piece of property to deal with because of the visibility and arterials involved. He stated that he felt that the architect had done a good job. He felt that the project was the best option and moved for approval . Commissioner Wood felt that all issues had been considered and discussed in great length. Chairman Crites noted that he had voted against the project to begin with because of the traffic issue and asked if Mr. Folkers felt that this was the best circulation pattern to be found for this particular property and if it would work. Mr. Folkers replied yes to both. Chairman Crites noted that the temporary building would be allowed for six months and received clarification from the city's counsel that if in six months the applicant has not proceeded with construction of the final building, action could be taken by the g planning commission. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1090, approving PP 85-9, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. B. Case No. PP 85-29 - MONTEREY DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Approval of a negative declaration and precise plan of design to allow construction of a 5410 square foot office building in the R-2 S.P. zone (office professional zone pending) on property located at the southwest corner of Sonora Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Sawa outlined the request and recommended approval . i 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 low Commissioner Wood asked if the site was included in the study being considered by the committee composed of two planning commission members and two members of the city council which was set up to study office professional . Staff replied yes. Commissioner Wood asked for clarification regarding the status of the recommendation from that committee. Commissioner Richards stated that the committee thoroughly approved the concept and design regarding setbacks, height, common areas of easements, but did not know what action was next. Mr. Diaz replied that an amendment to the standards was scheduled tentatively for November 5, to initiate those recommended changes. He noted that this would comply with the rezoning. Commissioner Wood asked if this building and the adjacent one were separate office buildings. Commissioner Richards stated that they were being done together because of aesthetic and other practical views, but had separate owners. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICH HOLDEN, explained that these would be his firm's offices and noted that he felt they complied with the requirements of the R-2 zoning. Mr. Diaz explained that in order to proceed with the office professional with a conditional %no use permit or if rezoned to office professional , no conditional use permit would be required. Staff explained that staff had assumed that the project would be rezoned, but was delayed by second reading by the city council . Mr. Holden asked if approval could be obtained by a condition regarding the zone change. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Wood expressed concern regarding approving projects with a condition that has not been approved by the planning commission or city council . Chairman Crites agreed that it was not a good policy as a norm and stated if the recommendations of this committee are changed during hearings that the development that receives approval would have to come back if they don't meet requirements. Commissioner Wood asked if this met Mr. Phillip's requirements. Mr. Phillips stated that he would have preferred a change of zone first, but stated that as long as the applicant 7 tar, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 understood that approval was based on the approval of the zone change he had no problem. Chairman Crites asked if the applicant understood. The applicant indicated a non-verbal affirmative response. Commissioner Richards explained that the committee had come up with a far more restrictive policy than what would have been required in the past. He stated that the committee felt this was an ideal concept. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1091 , approving PP 85-29, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. C. Case No. PP 25-83 (Amendment #1) - 1. HAROLD HOUSLEY, Applicant Approval of an amendment to a precise plan of design to allow construction of an office on land located on the west side of Monterey Avenue, north of the Palm Desert Town Center (44-311 Monterey Avenue) . Mr. Sawa outlined the staff report and recommended approval . Commissioner Downs asked for and received clarification regarding the deletion of the parking space and reduction of the building size. Commissioner Wood asked about the deletion of the circular drive and staff's reasons for that deletion. Staff indicated that cars could be parked face to face which would require backing out onto Monterey Avenue. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN, 44-616 Santa Margarita, explained that they are to separate buildings. He felt that in regards to the circular drive, one car would be using it at a time. He stated that he would like to keep it if possible. He asked about easements being reciprocal . Staff indicated that it could be included in the conditions. Mr. Holden indicated that the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1965 reasons for the drive were more for aesthetics and drop offs than for parking. Commissioner Wood asked about signs being posted saying enter and exit. Mr. Holden felt this would not be a problem. Commissioner Richards asked how close to a variance request from the applicant - parking versus square footage of the building. Commissioner Downs replied 6 2/3%. Mr. Diaz replied that 10% had been approved in the past. Chairman Crites asked if it was large enough two cars side by side. Mr. Holden replied no and indicated that it was to be used for drop offs and not parking. Commissioner Wood stated that the driveway did not bother him. Commissioner Richards concurred. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 74-091 Larrea - owner/developer, showed the commission the previously approved plan which had no opposition expressed at that time. He indicated that after further study ww he had decided to tear the existing building down and stated that he would like to keep the circular drive. He expressed concern regarding condition #10 regarding parking in the rear and reciprocal easements in the rear but stated that he was concerned about the development to the south. He wished to see the whole area upgraded. He did not have a problem with the concept of reciprocal easements but did not want to perpetuate a substandard use and did not want a negative impact on his property. Commissioner Richards stated that some other type of wording has been used in the past regarding cross use or reciprocal use if both parties agreed. Mr. Diaz explained that the city could hold the easements like an escrow. Mr. Housley asked if he would be a party to the escrow and asked about the rights. Mr. Diaz replied that when the other properties develop they would also grant reciprocal easements. Mr. Diaz stated that it was either that or not developing until some plan was submitted by the other property. 9 r.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 Mr. Housley felt that the property to the south would not be an asset to his development. Chairman Crites replied that when the item comes for public hearing, Mr. Housley should be there to testify. Mr. Housley spoke regarding the two story window and stated that he had a letter from the property owner to the west granting approval . Commissioner Richards stated that the committee was unanimously against a second story window facing R-1 regardless of whether the owner gave permission today, because someone moving in later might object. He noted that the committee was using it as a model for other projects. Mr. Diaz stated that Mr. Folkers might wish to address the issue of circular drives since public works approves of driveways. Mr. Folkers stated that he had some concerns and requested that if a problem is caused, action be taken at a later date. The developer and architect indicated affirmatively. Commissioner Wood asked if Mr. Housley agreed to condition #3 regarding windows. Mr. Housley answered yes. Commissioner Wood asked if Mr. Housley agreed to the joint-use easement with the neighbor to the south. Mr. Housley said to the north with the previously approved project and agreed to the concept of the driveway. He emphasized that there was a transfer of equity from his .r property to the others. Commissioner Richards spoke regarding the second story window and stated that if the balcony wall was high enough it would eliminate the view problems. Mr. Holden replied that they would try to open up the hallway. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1092, approving PP 25-83 (Amendment #1 ) subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 r... D. Case No's PP 85-30 and PMW 85-18 - BOB SANDIFER, Applicant Approval of a 13,000 square foot single story industrial building located in a service indust- rial zone at the southwest corner of Mediter- ranean and Beacon Hill . Mr. Joy explained the request and recommended approval . Commissioner Downs asked if all approvals from the association had been received. Mr. Joy indicated verbal approval had been received and was stated as a condition that approval was subject to a letter being received by the homeowners association. Commissioner Downs also asked about the sheriff's department concern regarding parking in the rear. Mr. Joy replied that it was not something that staff encouraged, but noted that it was an industrial building and would not generate a lot of traffic. Commissioner Downs disagreed regarding the traffic. Chairman Crites reminded the commission that a previous project indicated that there project would be commercial , and asked staff if it was a possibility that it could be converted to a commercial use. Commissioner Richards used McClellan Electric as an example and felt that the parking would be inadequate if converted. Commissioner Richards asked for the differences between the parking requirements and retail . Mr. Joy replied 15%. Chairman Crites asked that if this was a retail proposal if staff would consider having no off-street parking in the front of the building. Staff replied that if it was strictly retail they would probably not recommend this configuration; but felt that in this instance the location should be considered. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, explained that because the use was industrial and to maximize landscaping, parking was provided in the back. He stated that it would be used for typical warehouse and office uses. Chairman Crites expressed concern regarding what might happen in the future and also regarding Ms. Kilday's comments regarding excessive street parking, as well as having no sidewalks to keep people from walking in the street. Mr. Ricciardi indicated that if sidewalks were required he would comply but felt that parking should be allowed in the rear. He felt it would be easy to restrict the use by using the city business license. 11 r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 i Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. Mr. Diaz noted that condition #B under public works required sidewalk on Beacon Hill and Mediterranean as consistent with council policy and stated that no landscaping has been installed. MR. BOB SANDIFER, 75-125 Indian Wells, expressed approval of the deletion of parking in the front to allow more landscaping. He felt that it would beautify the whole area. Presently, he has no customers, but indicated that parking could be installed in the front at a future date. Commissioner Downs asked if the security systems would be there and how many trucks the applicant has at the present time. Mr. Sandifer replied 17 for landscaping. He felt it would be better for them to park in the back. Commissioner Richards questioned using the city license as a enforcement tool to police against retail use. Mr. Phillips replied that an intense use in a residential use was what he had seen come across his desk. Commissioner Richards noted that in the past this area was intended for light industrial and commented about a previous case that commission approved that would be primarily commercial . He requested that staff come back with a report on retail versus commercial versus industrial and whether conversion should be allowed. Mr. Joy stated that an ordinance amendment a couple of years ago doubled the standards. Mr. Diaz indicated that Vellie Way and Joni Drive is in the county (McClellan Electric) and stated that he has not seen any problem with parking and compatibility. He felt that the adjacent people in the industrial area should come in to speak in favor or opposition and stated that this would help reduce the number of studies for staff. Mr. Diaz also stated that a close watch would be kept on retail sites in that area. Chairman Crites asked at what point an industrial use should be considered commercial . Mr. Diaz replied it was who you sold merchandise to; it is commercial when you sell to the general public. Commissioner Richards indicated that a previous case discussed was for office space, but felt that a better look at uses and parking should be taken. i 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 r.�. Commissioner Wood stated that land could be leased at industrial space price and converted to office space, but that permits had to be obtained and noted that usually some remodeling would have to be done. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1093, approving PP 85-30 and PMW 85-18, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT THIS POINT. (4:48 P.M. ) E. Case No's CUP 85-5 and PP 85-32 - NEWMAN CENTER, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit, precise plan and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow use of an existing 4 unit apartment complex and two vacant lots as offices, church, meeting rooms, priest residence „r and off-street parking located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Pablo Avenue. Mr. Drell outlined the request and recommended approval . Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification regarding the description of the lots on the page I of the staff report. Chairman Crites felt good planning was not being done and if the commission agreed with the Palma Village Specific Plan, then something should be done with the two pieces of property in question. Mr. Drell felt that it was a good idea and thought it was a discussion item for the joint meeting. Chairman Crites felt this should be taken care of first. Mr. Drell asked if the entire project should be delayed until that happens. Chairman Crites felt that they should be involved in the process if the plan is going to be implemented. Mr. Diaz stated that the project as presented does not stop anything from occurring, with permanent improvements on Fred Waring and San Pablo, the only question being the two lots on Santa Rosa. If it does not proceed, the applicant loses nothing. Chairman Crites asked about the placement of buildings and whether a building should be remodeled or torn down completely. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1965 r Commissioner Richards expressed disapproval of staff for bringing this concept before the planning commission with all the temporary aspects involved. Chairman Crites suggested that the commission might wish to move to continue this item until the commission is certain what they would like, after receiving public testimony. Commissioner Wood concurred. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked for initial comments from the audience. Mr. Diaz stated that the use proposed was consistent with the Palma Village Specific Plan as envisioned by staff. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 73-725 El Paseo, spoke regarding the use and explained that the parking requirements would require the use of two lots. He explained that it was never the intent to do anything to the two lots inhabited at the present time. He stated that the church has the land to go to the two lots to the west for parking and would start the Palm Village change. Staff had suggested installing parking onto Fred Waring adjacent to the building, or move it to the rear, but we would not want to move the parking after it has already been installed. He stated that the building is a remodel for exterior only and the parking and establish a program to landscape all nine lots. He indicated that he would not like to see this development stopped and asked the commission what could be done to obtain approval . Chairman Crites indicated that the applicant had several options; ask the commission for a decision or ask for a continuance. Chairman Crites suggested an on-site inspection of the site. Commissioner Wood spoke regarding the issue of existing buildings and Chairman Crites suggested the city should take up that issue. Commissioner Richards felt that something should be done with the property right now, but with the present problems, it would not be a good project. He felt a lot of time should be spent on this lot because of its prominent location and felt more discussion was in order to determine exactly what should be built on Fred Waring. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. s 14 ri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 MR. NED GREELEY, 43-925 Monterey, requested comment from Commission Downs and asked advice from the commission. Commissioner Downs indicated that he had the same concerns already expressed and stated that he did not object to a church concept across from city hall . Chairman Crites had concern regarding the parking, seeing the location on-site, and whether the proposed should be allowed in that particular zone. Commissioner Richards stated that he was concerned with the staging and phasing aspects of the project. Commission Downs suggested that one or two commissioners look at the property. Chairman Crites felt this item should be continued until a decision is made regarding the plan. Mr. Phillips stated that if the commission were to deny the project there might be a limitation of six months. Chairman Crites suggested a continuance for the reasons stated previously. Mr. Diaz suggested having the committee that was set up to study office professional guidelines study this particular development and "" report back in two weeks. Mr. Diaz noted that it would be a policy decision to acquire the property by eminent domain. Commissioner Downs asked if the applicant would prefer a denial to allow him to appeal to the city council . Mr. Diaz indicated that felt that it would be referred back and still go to the office professional committee and city council . Commissioner Richards recommended continuing this item to a date uncertain. Mr. Diaz felt a continuance to November 5 would allow enough time to have everything worked out. Chairman Crites asked if this was enough time and cautioned about continuing the item too many times. Mr. Diaz suggested a one month continuance to November 19. Mr. Phillips commented that if the commission were to meet at the site right before the next meeting, it should be stated that way on the agenda. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 Chairman Crites commented that a special meeting could be called 24 ar/ hours prior to the meeting if they wished to meet there. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing this case to November 19, 1985. Carried 4-0. F. Case No. ZOA 85-7 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Zoning ordinance amendment listing recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the R-1-11 and PR zones and establishing minimum standards for their development. Mr. Diaz and Mr. Drell outlined the request. Chairman Crites asked if staff was preparing a specific plan for the whole north side area. Mr. Diaz replied that it was scheduled for November 5 to preplan the area that will be annexed. Mr. Drell explained that this does not deal with any particular area. He stated that without this amendment, this type of use cannot be used anywhere in the city. Commissioner Wood asked what was behind the request. Mr. Drell explained that a property owner interested in annexation would like this option on his property and that with a conditional use permit and compliance with all standards it would be possible. Commissioner Wood felt that it had not been popular with citizens and asked the opinion of the other commissioners. Commissioner Richards stated that the only time he had ever seen discussion for recreational vehicles were for mobile home parks and noted that this is the first time for an RV park. Commissioner Richards asked for clarification regarding the PR zone and R-1-11. Mr. Drell explained that it was for manufactured housing zone. Commissioner Wood asked about a hearing for neighbors. Mr. Drell explained that this is not a specific request, it is only to allow this to be requested. Commissioner Downs asked about how the section numbers were listed. Mr. Drell explained that it was for two different code sections: the PR zone and the R-1-M. Chairman Crites felt that while it might be appropriate in the R-1-11 zone he had concerns about it being allowed in the PR zone even with 16 rl MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 woo a conditional use permit and noted that manufactured housing developments are not allowed in the PR zone. Mr. Drell replied that if it was determined that it was appropriate it could be allowed. Chairman Crites stated that the issue was whether or not to give someone the right to ask for that use. Commissioner Downs asked about the 1500 square foot and suggested that he go to the nine other such sites in the valley and find out exactly what space is allowed. Mr. Drell explained that was where this area standard was obtained and suggested that commission could stipulate minimum width and depth. Commissioner Downs felt that the figures from the other RV parks be shown to the commission to allow them to effectively evaluate the request. He felt that the 1500 square feet was to much because it would allow them to live there year round. Commissioner Richards stated that some are being sold as timeshare and stated that he would like more discussion in general . Chairman Crites felt that since RV parks generally attract people with children and suggested an automatic requirement for playground equipment. Mr. Drell indicated that at council study session it was discussed that a highly detailed ordinance not be established so as not to encourage RV's and that they be dealt with on a very limited basis as they came in and reviewed individually. Chairman Crites r..+ felt that it should be stated specifically what would be required. Commissioner Downs felt a pool , laundry facility, and grocery store should be part of those standards. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. BOB ROBERTS, 5 Lafayette Rancho Mirage, explained that the parcel in question is in the county and could be developed in the county standards. His intent was to use a small portion of the property for RV parking in conjunction with manufactured homes such as Suncrest exclusively for retired citizens with a golf course and all amenities. He felt that by tying them together it would make it a successful venture. He noted that it would be under close scrutiny through the conditional use process and felt that it should be developed under the guidelines of the City of Palm Desert. He stated that a small segment of the property is directly north of Palm Valley, Del Safari to the further north boundary of Del Safari and Frank Sinatra. Chairman Crites stated that any ordinance adopted would apply to 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 a people aside from Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts replied that the point was well taken. low Chairman Crites asked if anyone else wished to testify. Commissioner Downs stated that he would like to add two conditions relating to provision of a pool and a grocery store which would give the city the protection it would need. Mr. Diaz replied that if a grocery store was required, it would be an economic decision; they would provide one if it was feasible. Commissioner Downs clarified that he did not mean a full-fledged grocery store. Commissioner Richards felt that it was time for a motion of continuance to allow further study. Chairman Crites noted that Mr. Roberts was asking for the use " in conjunction with" and stated that it could be required that the use be in conjunction with another facility. Mr. Drell replied that under number 7 that issue was dealt with and could be developed very easily. Mr. Drell explained that if it was a good idea in conjunction, why not as a single project and stated that these are issues to be decided. Commissioner Wood indicated that he had concerns about whether or not the City of Palm Desert was ready for RV and manufactured homes. Commissioner Richards stated that it is part of the north sphere and there could be some use for that area and something should be in the j ordinance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, continuing this case to November 5, 1985. Carried 4-0. Vill. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 85-4 - EXTENDED LEARNING TECHNIQUES, dba EL RANCHO ACADEMY, Applicant Resolution of denial for private school located on the south side of Hovley Lane, west of Portola Avenue. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, 18 rli MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 'r adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1094 denying CUP 85-4. Carried 4-0. B. Case No's GPA 85-5 and C/Z 85-5 - ARTHUR BAILEY a ASSOCIATES, Applicant Resolution of denial for general plan amendment and change of zone located on the south side of Hovley Lane between Portola Avenue and Eclectic Street. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1095 denying GPA 85-5 and C/Z 85-5. Carried 4-0. IX_ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE. X. COMMENTS Chairman Crites mentioned that he had spoken with Hank Stokes of the commercial committee and asked the commission if they were in favor of keeping a commercial committee for future project considerations to allow them to continue providing input. Commissioner Richards stated that their input was valuable and the commission would like to call on them in committee form on specific projects. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, recommending to city council a continuance of a commercial committee by minute motion. Carried 4-0. Mr. Diaz asked if Commissioner Richards would be available for a meeting of the office/professional committee. Commissioner Richards stated that he would check his calendar. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 1985 1 XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6: 17 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary; ATTEST: BUFO CRITES, Chairman / m i 20 Nod