Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1105 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 5, IS65 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE %MW . 0 A I A * * IT * * A A A 0 0 A * -.�. I. CALL TO ORDER wairman Kriten ra! rra rnr mypiinn -n oroer at imp vm.. I!. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE rommissioner Noon won !n rnp p ,pnop of alipoiAnr-. Ill. POLL CALL membpro ppesent ; yufn-o :vitro , K"airman .am wlchvrr� Wenent: "tpvp bmirn hn"n Qnilhn�; "run kv: r7 nrAn Raw--i pnl ! "rok hnil Y. - fonvR mnnrof�, laynkv0d up N010hp.- Hon"ps; tor approval nt u7norar :v, mir . Action. Mnvrn nw nnmmivsinnrr mono s-rnnnva nv flmminQinner downs, anorovino rnp minufar nq s"nmirrqn. F�rr I on 1 -0- 1 ,i-.i nn-t- �-�r-t�., ri ansrainpo. 1 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION MP, 5111n �M,MarlWn TMV Mtl=n of TMP rMynolk ornm its mpetirn ot .-IT rnry nprTyinpn to too comminsicn. Viso snnvp Woornlnn inst mvering. 40� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 V1 . CONSENT CALENDAR 400 NONE . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. GPA 85-4 AND C/Z 85-3 - BIRTCHER/DUNHAM, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan land use element change from medium density residential ( 5-7 dujacr-p) to core area commercial and a change of zone from PR-6 (planned residential . six dwelling units per acre) to (:-1 (general commerriai ) for approximately 10. 1 arres and a negative declaration of environmental impact for land bo ended by El Pa�,en, Shadow Mountain Dr i vo, c'an Pablo Avenue, and I_arksour Lane. Mr. Sawa outlined the recauest and recommended approval . Chairman Crites stated that he had rer,eiverla letter from Mr. William Kroonpn and Mrs . Paula Kroonen, who expressed opposition to the Oro ject . C;hairman Crites asked about the environmental checklist and the traffic analysis. Staff indicated that the checklist was w oo inadvertently left out of the second copying and the traffic analv�,is had not been completed. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the develnper to addres, the commission. MR. (AIR-( D WHAM, 7 3-080 El Paseo, explained he had visited 50 re,idents alone Shadow Mountain Drive and of those 50 talked with 211 and left <a packet of information with the other 30. He invited all 5(1 to come by his offire, but no one ramp. He �;tated that in relation to Ironwood, Joshua, Juniper, and San Pablo, there woii i d be no v i sua i impact to Ironwood, Joshua, or Juniper. He noted that the landscaping along Shadow Mountain Drive would he reviewed by the architectural commission, and noted that as a mitigation measure, no vehicular access would be allowed onto Shadow Mountain and landscaping would he used as a v i 5LIa 1 screening. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. arl/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 MR. JOHN BAKER, 73-520 Joshua Tree, explained that he had been vow told that there was not enough money to huiId the dovelooment .and that it was suggested that the city provide the applicant with $:30 million, because it would be an advantage to the city. Chairman Crites explained that the applicant was only asking for a c_hanwe of zone without a specific project on the property. He noted that a pro i ect would he considered in the future and any question of money woti I d he discussed at that time. Commissioner Richards explained that there was a possihility that the city would use redevelopment money to encour.3ae develonmenr in the city such as the tentative prnposai . He stated that the person to contact would he Carlos Orterla, Redevelopment Director. MR. MF L.V I N (3(--)RC)ON. 72-944 Joshua Tree, felt that a nark i nq study and impact on Shadow Mountain should he done and felt that without a part i ru I ar plan or development it was d i f f i rt i l t to understand. Lhairman Crites explained that when there isn't a particular development , maximum possihln imnacts are cons i dered. Mr. 6ordon cone I tided by s.ay i na he fe I t i nstiff i r i enf facts were availah1e to make an evaluation. MS. MAR I F HILLY,L_Y, 7 3-506 ,loshu.a I ree, .asked if the developer-, tacked to homeowners or renters. ",he felt that the area south of Highway III should be residential and agreed with Mr. Gordon that traffic imnartF, should be considered. She felt that if the zone were changed, Palm Desert would look iust like Palm .1;prings and F1 Pasen superfluous . (,ommissioner Rirhardc� explained to Mr, fully that the commission had asked the developer to go to the site .and get responses, whether they were renters or weekend guests, ,and wanted to encouraae thi,. type of inquiry frnm all developers. MR. BOB SNYDE R, 73- 142 'Shadow Mountain, suagested a zone ,n l i t. He felt that El Paseo would not survive in a residential use and that Shadow Mountain snould he residential . MR. HAKFR, spoke again .and noted that the only people contacted were adjacent to the project. He felt a areatpr area should be canvassed. He felt that F1 Pasen should remain principally one story and felt that the view should also be considered. He noted that in the letter from Mr. Kroonen, he mentioned low density profile, preserve and protect, precedent setting for high rise, and developers asking for more and more. Mr. Baker fP)t Palm Springs was a giarinq example. He also noted from Mr. Kroonen' s letter the commitment of the city to quality fir► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 f planning and environmental integrity and the general welfare of the community. Mr. Baker felt that the few favorable comments regarding the project was not the opinion of the whole area. He also felt that apartments and renters should not have a say because they did not have a vested interest in the property. Mr. Dunham explained his process of sending out notices to the approximately 200 owners and stated that of those 200 only one person came by the office. He also explained that there was a height limit would be complied with. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Erwood felt it would be more reasonable to zone the property R-3 and C-1 to preserve the commercial use on El Paseo and protect residential use on Shadow Mountain. Chairman Crites clarified the commission's options with the attorney to either accept or deny the staff report, but to also change the recommendation and split zone change without further public hearing. Mr. Phillips felt that the commission could make a recommendation consistent with the staff's recommendation for council . Commissioner Wood noted the support of the business community and ,✓ supported staff. He stated that EI Paseo warrants a C-1 zone and also noted that in developing that property, the applicant has to come back for consideration and that a buffer zone and other issues could warrant a development agreement. He stated that from a standpoint of zoning he would like to see the entire parcel zoned C-1 . Commissioner Richards agreed with Commissioner Erwood and Mr. Snyder . He expressed concern with the commercial depth. He suggested that a further compromise was in order to let. 400' commercial and 200' be zoned R-3 for buffer zone type parking area. Commissioner Downs agreed. Chairman Crites spoke regarding the issue of two and three story building heights and explained that the height would remain the same regardless of the number of stories and that it was a 10 foot or 15 foot interior floor height change, not building height. He also stated that when speaking of split zoning, he felt that residents thought R-3 zoning would make the back residential , which is wrong. He noted that it could allow a parking lot and felt that all it may be doing would be commercial in front and parking in back, which would allow the same size commercial project and there being no 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 �... traffic_ analysis, he could not vote for this because changing the zoning to R-3 would not do a thing, which would allow the same problems if zoned all C- l . Commissioner Richards stated that commission needs to come up with a plan to accomplish several things - insure the development on core commercial is a quality project. He felt a parking lot fully landscaped would be better than looking at the hack of a commercial building. He felt that the testimony of some of the local architects at a previous meeting dealing with height drop that some good things could be done so not much impact would be there regarding visibility. He felt the greatest concern was traffic. Chairman Crites felt that one thing that might work was to write into the rezoning that no structure could exist on that property which would create any more line of sight than construction of a two story apartment building. He felt that was part of the issue. Commissioner Wood reiterated that it be C-1 because it would come hack to planning commission and go the architectural review. He felt that concerns expressed were solid and could be mitigated. He felt that splitting zones creates problems and should be total C-l . Commissioner Erwood asked what zone would be compatible with the �+ residential section that would allow something other than a parking lot , some type of residential construction compatible with other residents on that street. Mr. Sawa replied R-1 , R-2, and PR zone. but noted that. a 200' depth would not be adequate for PR zone. Commissioner 1ichards stated that he has had no problem with split zoning and felt that some action should be taken. He thought it was possible to create a park atmosphere with a wall and landscaping that visual height with 2.00' minimum depth with structures to he used as a landscaped parking lot with no access onto Shadow Mountain. He felt this would accomplish an adequate compromise. He took the initiative to create the split zone creating 400' of commercial from El Paseo and 200' of R-3 with the specific intent that no structures be built in that 200' . Mr. Phillips expressed concern with granting the zone and conditioning what could be potentially placed on that zone and stated that if the applicant came back with a proposal conflicting with that condition, the commission would have difficulty enforcing that condition. Commissioner Wood noted that if C- 1 was approved. when the proposal was presented it could be stipulated that a buffer area should he constructed to protect the citizens. Mr. Phillips concurred. Now MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 i Commissioner Richards asked if it would be proper in relation to the change of zone to use a development agreement. Mr. Phillips replied affirmatively. Commissioner Richards modified his concerns to create an initiative via the development agreement that would expire when a certain time period occurred and no development has taken place. He suggested that the commission instruct staff to prepare a development agreement that creates a 400 foot core commercial area extending from El Paseo and a200 foot R-3 that ends up with no structure or something so inoffensive so the Shadow Mountain residents rights and protection have been considered. Mr. Phillips indicated this was appropriate. Chairman Crites clarified that the commission could condition the change of zone on a given development agreement that has within it those prerequisites. Mr. Phillips stated the commission was talking about a development agreement that encompasses a zone change. Chairman Crites expressed concern with the commercial development and its impact on traffic in the area. Commissioner Richards felt that parking was a problem with no immediate solution and noted that the merchants who expressed interest and a desire to unify the street are aware of the parking problem and they will be the ones affected. Chairman Crites felt the commission needed more data on this issue because of it having a more intensive use. Commissioner Richards felt it would be hard to justify any new structure within 500-600 yards of where the El Paseo/Highway III corridor exists , all could be denied on the basis of increased traffic_ and no place to put them. He felt the challenge now was to meet the needs of the merchants and get this action moving. Mr . Phillips stated that the proposed motion should be that the matter be referred to staff for preparation of a development agreement to be brought before the commission at a time for commission review and recommendation to the council . Commissioner Erwood stated that this would be on the particular proposal as articulated by Commission Richards having R-3 and C-1 zoning. Mr. Phillips stated that part of the recommendation would be a general plan amendment and change of zone as articulated by Commissioner Richards, to come back as part of the development agreement. Commissioner Downs questioned the total square footage of the parcel and suggested to only have the 200 foot depth as R-3 and the rest C-I . Commissioner Richards stated that he would be comfortable if i 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 the development agreement were to state that on the residential side the R-3 be no less than 200 feet in depth. Chairman Crites clarified that the southerly 200 feet of the subject property would be zoned R-3 with the remainder of the property be zoned C-1 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, instructing staff to prepare a development agreement that creates a buffer zone of R-3 on the south side property to be no less than 200' deep and C- 1 on the remainder of the property, along with the appropriate resolutions for recommendation to the council , for adoption at the meeting of November 19, 1985. Carried 3-2 (Chairman Crites and Commissioner Erwood voting no. ) Mr. Phillips suggested that the item come back as a public hearing item. Commissioner Richards asked for a non verbal communication of the developer that he might be able to meet and acquiesce to this development agreement proposed in a general nature. The developer signified a positive affirmation. The agreement would not preclude a parking structure or trash r.. enclosure. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8: 10 P.M. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, suspending the order of the agenda to consider item #E at this point. Carried 5-0. E. Case No. ZOA 85-8 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment relating to building heights and setbacks in the office professional zone. Mr. Drell outlined the request and recommended approval . Chairman Crites stated that the item had been discussed in study session. Commissioner Richards gave the background of the office professional committee and explained how the committee mitigated its concerns. 7 "No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 i j Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked it anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. BOB RICCIARDI , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, indicated that _along Monterey R- 1 was there first and felt any two story building would affect the R-1 area. He asked that a condition of now windows face R-1 . He spoke against having a tunnel effect created on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. He felt that one story should be allowed, which would mean less cars. He stated that he would not want to live there, and questioned if R- 1 should stay or become something else. Commissioner Wood felt that Mr. Ricciardi was not coming up with an economic solution. Mr. Ricciardi replied that it was aesthetic, and noted that this area would be where people come into town. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Chairman Crites asked for and received clarification on the issue of setback increases and how they effect the line of site for the property owner. Mr. Drell indicated that a much lower profile would be maintained. Mr. Orel ] stated that the average elevation would be the sum of the highest point and the lowest point divided by two. Chairman Crites noted that this would not lower the line of site for the person driving down Monterey. Commissioner Richards commented that he felt Mr. Ricciardi was correct regarding the aesthetics and noted that even with 18 feet and underground parking the building would be 22-23 feet high. He stated that the committee took note of the surrounding projects (e.g. Town Center) . He noted that the property would mostly be utilized during the day, and maximum building coverage would not exceed 50%. Mr. Drell indicated that the conditions for maximum building coverage not to exceed 50% and the equation for the average elevation would be added as part of the resolution as per the recommendation of the committee. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1096, recommending approval of 7.OA 85-8 to city council . Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, initiating an amendment to the Palma Village Specific Plan concerning the 45 foot parking easement for the west side of Monterey Avenue south of Fred Waring Drive. Carried 5-0. B. Continued Case No. C/Z 85-8 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of changes of zone implementing the Palma Village Specific Plan from R-3 (4) , one unit per 4,000 square feet and R-1 to a dual designation of R-3, one unit per 2,500 square feet and OP, office professional for the first two lots on the north side of Alessandro Drive between San Carlos and Portola Avenue and a change from R- 1 to R-2 for the triangular block bounded by Portola Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue. Mr. Drell gave and outline of the request. �... Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MS. MARCIA JENKINS, 45-707 Deep Canyon, explained that she owns property next to the triangular shaped parcel . She expressed concern about whether people could build residential on Portola and felt that the other parcels should be zoned office professional also. She stated that three years ago sidewalk was installed and asked about Portola being widened and if the sidewalk would be ripped out and installed again. Mr. Holtz explained the process of how the street would be widened. Ms. Jenkins asked why Alessandro should be zoned different. Mr. Drell explained that it was better to block character along the back property line and noted that the city wished to avoid going into a residential area and wanted to maintain single family homes on Portola, but that it could be reassessed in the future if no action takes place. MS. IRENE SCHMIDT, 44-794 San Jose, expressed the opinion that the commission felt the single family residences were not important. She stated that it was the one family residents that had made the desert what it is by supporting it all year. She 9 ■ v MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 stated that the place on Monterey and Fred Waring looked like a wo white elephant and expressed opposition to this being developed on Alessandro. She also felt she was being pushed out of the importance of her home. Chairman Crites asked staff to reassure Mrs . Schmidt that no reproduction of the Martin project that exists on the corner of Monterey and Fred Waring could exist under staff's regulations. Mr. Drell stated that under the proposed office professional zone it could not be repeated. MR. JAMES DURANT, 44-795 San Jose, felt it was a good plan, but did not want to see it go any further. He stated that the area needs sewer lines and curbs. Mr. Drell replied that as part of the Palma Village plan sewers were being studied. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards Stated that after 30 years of deterioration and the lots staying vacant it was time for some action. He felt the area between Fred Waring, Monterey, Highway lit , and Deep Canyon provided one of the best of Palm Desert's areas to live. He stated that the city was not trying to encroach on the residential section, but to stop by creating a buffer to protect the single family homes. Commissioner Wood felt that this was the best solution. Commissioner Downs explained that the redevelopment agency was discussing a program to help single family homes refurbish the area. Commissioner Erwood spoke about the petition received and indicated that the commission had discussed sending this matter back to the committee for further study. Commissioner Richards withdrew his earlier opposition. Commissioner Downs felt that since this matter had been discussed extensively, it would not be an advantage to send it to the committee and stated that it would be going before the city council . Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2 (Chairman Crites and Commissioner Erwood voting no. ) Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1097, recommending 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 approval of C/7. 85-8 to the city council . Carried 3-2 (Chairman Crites and Commissioner Erwood voting no. ) C. Continued Case No. ZOA 85-7 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Zoning ordinance amendment listing recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the R-I-M and PR zones and establishing minimum standards for their development. Mr. Drell outlined the standards in the report and recommended approval . Commissioner Wood clarified that the amendment would allow for recreational vehicle park plans to be submitted to the city for consideration. Chairman Crites asked if it could be required that large canopy shade trees be provided. Mr. Drell replied yes. Mr. Smith suggested this be applied at the architectural review level . Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the case. There tow being no one, the Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Wood noted that there was no harm in having this amendment and it also provided safe guards. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Erwood abstained due to absence of previous meeting discussion. ) Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1098, recommending approval of ZOA 85-7 to city council . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Erwood abstained due to absence of previous meeting discussion. ) D. Case No. PP 85-33 - R.K. DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a 44,000 square foot office/industrial complex located in a service industrial zone in the Cook. Street Industrial Park at the corner of Beacon Hill and Sego Lane. 11 ir.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 Mr. Joy outlined the request and recommended approval with the additional condition that the applicant would agree to a reasonable assessment for the bridge over the Whitewater Channel on Cook and extension of Interstate 10. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. BOB RICCIARDI , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane - architect, stated that he did not want to install the sidewalk, but would like to put in landscaping. Mr. Ricciardi stated that in regard to the landscaping around the entrance poles, he would work with staff to avoid violation of handicap standards. Commissioner Downs asked Mr. Ricciardi if he was willing to join an assessment district as mentioned above. Mr. Ricciardi replied yes. Commissioner Richards informed the applicant that the city council had directed that sidewalks be required, noting that the applicant could appeal the condition at a city council meeting. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. { Commissioner Richards commended the applicant for providing parking spaces beyond what was required. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1099, approving PP 85-33, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT THIS POINT. (9:34 P.M. ) F. Case Nos. C/Z 85-10 and PP 85-31 - TURNER, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential , five units per acre) to AHDPR- 18 (affordable high density planned residential , 18 units per acre) , precise plan of design to allow 80 residential units on 4.85 acres on the north side of Magnesia Fails Drive, 12 ..i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 676 feet east of Portola Avenue and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto. Mr. Smith explained the request and outlined the salient points of the staff report. Staff felt that after 1200 units had been built in the city it was time to re-evaluate the situation to see if any additional units were needed. Chairman Crites noted that a number of conditions had been submitted by Officer Kilday and asked if staff had addressed those conditions. Mr. Smith replied that because staff was recommending denial , they had not been addressed. He stated that if commission wished, those issues could be addressed. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. JAMES LOGAN, outlined his proposal and described the amenities that would be provided as well as the costs involved in building the project. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . low MR. ED MALONY, 385 Via Osono, explained that he was the head of Wedgewood Glen Homeowners Association, expressed opposition concerning the higher density impact, noise, park complaints which the project would not help, and recommended denial as representing the board. MR. BOB SHIROBRY, vice president, felt the use of the site was inappropriate. He felt two stories would impact the whole area as well as bring in around 160 additional cars into the neighborhood as well as not having signalized traffic at Portola and Magnesia Falls or at Rutledge and Magnesia Falls. He felt traffic count should be done for the safety zones around the school . MS. MARGIE LEWIS, homeowner of Wedgewood Glen, spoke against the high density and low income, as well as the impact of an additional 160 people to the area. She also objected to the noise and adjacent homeowners investment. She stated that the wash entices children and has been a problem as far as noise pollution, damage to the sides of the banks and from motorized vehicles which could be a greater problem with this proposed type of development . She also spoke against the traffic 13 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 congestion on Rutledge when school activities occur and the storing of "junk" in the carport/garages and cars parked up and down the street and the additional traffic exiting on that development going east onto Deep Canyon, which does not need additional traffic flow. Also vandalism in the park was a problem by kids, of which from this project another 80 children would be possible. MR. JOHN MARSHALL, 4.3-200 Rutledge, felt the proposed project does not fit the area. He expressed concern regarding traffic that would endanger area children, atc's and skateboard riders and felt these issues should be considered. He stated that it would be a hazard for traffic going down Rutledge and children crossing the street. He suggested that if this project passed that. Rutledge be cul-de-sacced. He asked that the commission note the projects around the city that are going bankrupt and that will be available. He felt the project did not fit the area. MR. DON YOUNG, 240 Via Picone, asked about the distance of the high school from the project and the legal notices being sent out. Mr. Smith explained the process. MS. CATHY COTTON, 43-201 Rutledge, expressed opposition to the project, and stated that there was enough trouble at the park "Will without low income housing being constructed. Mr. Logan indicated that the project was affordable housing, not low income. He explained that the owner/manager would be on the site next to Mr. Malony's property. He took note of the concerns regarding traffic and stated that he could work with the public works department and said that he would not object to the closure of Rutledge. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Wood stated that he would vote to deny the application based on the feelings indicated by staff and evidence. He noted to the adjacent property owners that Magnesia Falls would be a heavy traffic route between Portola and Deep Canyon, which was being used now. He felt also that the site presently was an eye sore and very unkept. He also noted that while everyone always wants new facilities (e.g. fire station, sheriff's facilities) they don't want to be next to them. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 r Commissioner Downs concurred with Commissioner Wood. He stated that in the past he had been a vocal proponent for a low cost housing project there, but in view of what the council had indicated, he could not vote for this project. Commissioner Richards gave a brief history of the Wedgewood Glen development and how it was allowed to be built and the agreement that the density of those units and the proposed would be twice as many, which were going to be rented. The density had been promised in turn for the development. of Wedgewood Glen. He stated that because of the short distance to many amenities made this site suitable for the type of project proposed. He felt that the 1200 unit figure was not appropriate. He stated that while council was placing a moratorium at this time, it would not be permanent. Commissioner Erwood noted that while the 1200 unit figure might have come out of nowhere, he felt that the conservative approach was appropriate. Chairman Crites addressed several concerns: lack of amenities, children in the wash - a wall could be built to prevent three-wheelers which could be addressed now, the junk in the carports (e.g. One Quail Place) does not occur, traffic count and pattern should be done for the area, and low cost - he didn't feel that costs vow between $520 and $700 was transient occupancy, and he felt the 1200 unit figure was out-of-date and should be reconsidered, and the issue of park problems and if the project would up the amount of problems and if the developers would be willing to make some kind of on-going maintenance to the park . He did not find this absolutely inappropriate if the issues could be resolved, but could not vote in favor with the present data. Commissioner Downs stated that residents with any problems with off road vehicles and vandalism could talk to Officer Sue Kilday. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4- 1 (Commissioner Richards voting no. ) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1100, denying C/Z 85-10. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1101 , denying PP 85-31 . Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Richards voting no. ) 15 r... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 1 VIll. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP 85-9, 1ST BANK OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Clarification of a condition of approval of an amendment of a 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 111 . Mr. Smith explained that this item was a matter of clarification regarding a condition and how it is being met. The condition was pertained to the parcel map consolidation of five lots be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the permanent bank. He explained that there was a problem with the title and there would be a delay in recording the map and to expedite the building permit issuance, the applicant had submitted a letter of credit in the amount of $18,000 which guarantees that the title. Mr. Smith stated that the city attorney indicated that it met with his approval . MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 45-500 Navaho, stated that he would like to get a building permit. He explained that it was seven to eight months to completion after obtaining the building permit, although no occupancy permit would be issued until the parcel map was recorded. He felt that the problem should be solved in a few days. Commissioner Wood felt it should be clearly stated in the minutes that the commission was waiving the condition of the parcel map in lieu of the $ 18,000 letter of credit to allow the applicant to proceed with construction on that basis. Mr. Phillips affirmed that was the issue before the commission. Commission expressed approval of the action. B. MARTIN AXIS, INC., Applicant Mr. Smith explained that the case was previously approved by city council and that when the plan came before architectural commission for review in early October some changes had been made. Staff took the matter to council and they referred it to planning commission, for determination of whether the changes were significantly different , which would require another public hearing. Staff 16 # i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 rr explained that the change involved an additional 700 feet to the dining area. Commission determined that the changes were major and advised the applicant to keep the original plan approved by the commission and council . C. Designated Motorcycle Parking Mr. Smith explained that a council member suggested an amendment to Resolution No. 725 to require designated motorcycle parking. Commission referred the matter to staff for review at some future date. D. Determination of use: Pet hotel in service industrial (S.1 .) zone Mr. Smith indicated that an applicant approached staff with a request to allow pet hotels in the service industrial zone. Commission indicated that it would consider the request when the applicant was present. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Crites expressed his displeasure that a detailed traffic analysis was not included in the staff report as he had requested regarding Case Nos. GPA 85-4 and C/Z 85-3 Birtcher/Dunham. He stated that he did not want this to happen again. Commissioner Wood commented that the city has one north sphere assessment district for Monterey and noted that the assessment district for Cook Street was only an idea at the present time and has not been brought before the city. Commissioner Richards stated that it was brought to his attention that there was no street plans for sections of property under 17 r.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1985 consideration for development (e.g. behind the Carver property) . He �/► felt something should be done as soon as possible. Mr. Smith replied that it was correct that the city does not have that plan. He stated that the city council at its next meeting would be authorizing a contract with an economic consultant who will assess the financial impacts in the north and east spheres. After that is done, a secondary plan will follow which will accommodate a street plan. Chairman Crites asked about the poor condition of the pavement on Haystack. Mr. Holtz replied that improvements were being done, one of which was the installation of a water main extension by CVWD from Alamo east. He stated that the paving was temporary and that permanent paving would be installed. X1 . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :21 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretaf,z ATTEST: BUFORD C TES, Chairman /tm 18 i