Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0902 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING BEGINNING AT 5:00 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Crites called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Members Present: Buford Crites, Chairman Bob Downs Rick Erwood Jim Richards Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Dave Erwin Greg Holtz Phil Drell Steve Smith Phil Joy Catherine Sass Tonya Monroe Chairman Crites introduced Carol Whitlock, the new planning commissioner, and congratulated Commissioner Downs for his reappointment for another term. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration for approval of August 19, 1986 minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Erwood and Whitlock Abstained.) MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated that the only action council considered that pertained to planning commission on August 28 was the appointment and reappointment of the planning commissioners. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR NONE. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 86-1 - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow replacement of existing one island gas station at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Portola Avenue with a two island station and 2000 sq. ft. convenience store. Mr. Diaz explained that a super block concept would be implemented for the project and recommended that a continuance be granted. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. FRANK WELLS stated that he had returned with a redesign and that within the last two weeks he had redesigned the project with increased landscaping and berming. He indicated that architectural approval had been obtained as to building materials. He informed commission that the super block concept was an "eleventh hour change" which had been discussed at the very first, but deemed unworkable. He stated that his attorney felt there was no legal to bind the project to make them put in a super block. He requested approval of the plans as submitted, but stated that if the case were continued they would try to redesign the project. Commissioner Richards informed the applicant that the super block would be to his benefit and indicated that he primarily sent the project back to the architectural commission, but didn't see any village atmosphere incorporated. He felt that with the super block concept, the project would be improved. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 .. Chairman Crites indicated that two members of the commission were not in attendance at the previous hearing and would like the opportunity to study the data and take part in the decision making process and would recommend a continuance for this reason. Commissioner Whitlock concurred. Commissioner Downs requested input from public works. Mr. Holtz stated that staff had met with Arco to discuss the super block with Joe Gaugush on August 27 to incorporate portions of the super block concept per direction of staff and council members. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, be asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing CUP 86-1 to September 16, 1986. Carried 5-0. B. Continued Case No. DA 86-6/Parcel Map - CHARTER COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Agreement and Parcel Map for 239 unit congregate care/skilled nursing facility. Mr. Diaz recommended a continuance of two weeks of the entire issue of senior overlay and senior housing, as well as congregate care, to allow discussion by the commission. Chairman Crites stated that this would allow staff to find out if some regulations and methods of analyzing densities could be decided. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. ROBERT BARTON, Charter Communities, commended the planning commission in being perceptive in recognizing that there are several types of senior housing and congregate care. He indicated that their concern was that commission had approved the project in concept, design, and site use. He also expressed concern to get a final development agreement. He indicated that the only disagreement is whether or not senior housing units could be required, which involved 45 or 60 units. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 MR. NORM REYNOLDS, Charter Communities, extended the offer to be available anytime to commission members, staff, or council to continue discussions. He indicated they would continue to pursue negotiations with the commission and council to complete the concerns in a timely fashion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, directing staff to prepare a revised final draft agreement for the meeting of September 16, 1986. Carried 5-0. Chairman Crites suspended the order of items on the agenda. E. Case No. PP 86-34 and CUP 86-4 - RICHARD SELENE, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design and Conditional Use Permit for a 7-11 food store on the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Park View Drive. Mr. Diaz asked for a continuance to September 16 due to a problem with the legal noticing. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, he asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing PP 86-34 and CUP 86-4 to September 16, 1986. Carried 5-0. F. Case No. PM 21915 - HAROLD HOUSLEY, Applicant Request for approval of the subdivision of proposed 4380 square foot of office space previously approved on the west side of Monterey Avenue, 500 feet north of the Town Center. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . Commissioner Richards asked about the background of the case. Mr. Diaz replied that it was previously approved as office/condominiums. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 to" Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. HAROLD HOUSLEY, applicant/developer, indicated that he had nothing further to add and asked for approval to allow subdivision. Commissioner Richards questioned this use from a market standpoint. Mr. Housley replied that some people would like a small office space and approval would allow smaller project the ownership benefits that larger projects receive. He stated that approval would allow him the ability offer this option. 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. 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. 1174, approving PM 21915, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. J. Case No. C/Z 86-5 - PALM DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a cancellation of DA 86-4 and Ordinance No. 415 to revert zoning from AHDPR-18 to Service Industrial (S. i . ) on a triangular shaped parcel directly south of the intersection of Hovley Lane and Beacon Hill , bound by 42nd Avenue on the south. Mr. Diaz outlined the request and recommended approval . Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. FRANK CANNON, applicant, stated that he had nothing to say. 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. Chairman Crites asked for a motion. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1175, approving C/Z 86-5. Carried 5-0. K. Case No. TT 21698 - ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Applicant Request for approval of a subdivision of 19.25 acres for 34 residential lots. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Applicant declined. 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. Action: ` Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1176, approving TT 21698, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. M. Case No. PP 86-41 - GEORGE CASWELL, Applicant Request for approval of an 8900 square foot industrial warehouse facility located in a Service Industrial zone on the west side of Corporate Way, 403 feet south of Hovley Lane. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. The applicant declined. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1966 OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Downs asked that the deletion of the two dead-end streets mentioned in the staff report be added as a condition of approval . Mr. Smith indicated that it was being discussed, but might not be possible. He also explained that the 42" high wall on Mr. Solomon's property has not been built, staff wished to avoid having two dead-ends and would continue discussions. Commissioner Erwood noted that since the Solomon project has been approved the wall could be built tomorrow. Commissioner Downs stated the commission should direct staff to continue discussion on this matter. Chairman Crites indicated that staff should do what it could to eliminate these dead-ends. Mr. Diaz stated that staff wanted to insure that commission would not have any objections before proceeding. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. �.. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1177, approving PP 86-41, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. (Development Agreement) - J" TURNER, Applicant Request for approval of a development agreement relating to terms and conditions of rent of a 60 unit apartment project of which 12 of the units will have affordable rents, located on the north side of Magnesia Falls Drive at Rutledge. Mr. Joy reviewed the background of the case and indicated that the applicant had concerns regarding 1) project having to continue the eight foot meandering sidewalk along Magnesia Falls Drive (public works condition #11 ) . Mr. Joy explained that Magnesia Falls is a designated route for the bikeway and the city is trying to get as much sidewalk along this route completed as possible. 2) landscaping along existing bikeway (community development condition #8) - Mr. Joy indicated that staff's intent was not to have a high maintenance area but a limited amount of landscaping. He indicated that the 7 WAMW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 Coachella Valley Water District found this feasible. Staff recommended approval of the development agreement by adoption of the proposed resolution. Commissioner Richards asked about the cost to build an eight foot sidewalk. Commissioner Downs noted that it would be eight feet compared to five feet on the other side. Mr. Diaz stated that the sidewalk on applicant's property and landscaping only to Deep Canyon would be involved. Mr. Holtz replied that the cost difference between eight feet and five feet would be approximately $7,500. Commissioner Richards also questioned the cost of landscaping. Chairman Crites indicated that he was being persuaded toward the project because of the condition that would allow a portion of the wash that would look "junky" forever to be improved. Chairman Crites asked staff for a definition of a limited amount of landscaping. Mr. Joy replied that the landscaping would be comparable to that on Fred Waring Drive. Chairman Crites felt that the landscaping on the west side of Monterey was acceptable. Commissioner Richards asked who would maintain the landscaping. Mr. Diaz replied the public works department. Chairman Crites noted the developer would install the landscaping and the city would maintain it. Chairman Crites asked if the irrigation system would be installed by the developer. Mr. Joy replied yes and indicated that two the developer would maintain that portion of the bikeway. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon Drive - planning consultant, felt that the city was asking the developer to improve and maintain someone eises property. He indicated that curb and gutter was originally discussed. He noted that the bikepath tapers off into the street and the sidewalk in front of Wedgewood Glen is only five feet wide. He felt there might be a problem with people going into a narrower sidewalk. After further discussion Chairman Crites recommended tapering the eight foot sidewalk to five feet to eliminate an abrupt change. Mr. Joy stated this could be done and would be added as condition #11 under public works. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. 8 r■11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 MR. ED MALOTTE, 385 Via La Sorno-Wedgewood Glen, expressed concern for the wall that exists between the two properties because It Is under s i x feet and on the east side the gate Is open by the swimming pool . He was concerned with people coming over the wall . He recommended that a straight wall along the property be installed. He asked about obtaining a copy of the conditions. Mr. Diaz informed him that since the entire project requires a change of zone it will be brought before the city council and he could obtain a copy before then. Commissioner Erwood questioned Mr. Malotte on the wall of his development. Mr. Malotte felt that the existing wall height should be raised by the developer to relieve any possibility of a nuisance. Commissioner Richards informed Mr. Malotte that six feet is the standard height and asked if that would be acceptable. Mr. Malotte replied yes and asked that it extend to the wash. Mr. Diaz stated that it should be make clear that the six foot wall would be measured from finished grade on the applicant's west side. Chairman Crites noted that it could appear to be seven feet from the other side. Mr. Malotte found this acceptable. MR. BAUM stated that he felt he could keep people from going over the wall by using sloping and grading and indicated that they would be six to seven feet in height by the time it is finished. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. After further discussion, Mr. Diaz repeated that the condition would be that the applicant would agree upon a six foot wall measured from applicant's property finished grade and that the wall be made solid where the gate opening exists. Commission concurred. Commissioner Erwood recommended that the word "maintain" be eliminated from community development condition #8. Commissioner Richards concurred. Mr. Diaz stated that if the city chose not to have landscaping installed because it did not wish to maintain it at this time, funding could be asked for to a 1 1 ow it to be done at a later date. Chairman Crites noted that the city council could strike that condition if there was a problem. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1966 Action: two Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1178, recommending to city council approval of PP 86-31, C/Z 86-4, and the associated development agreement/conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. CHAIRMAN CRITES CALLED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 8:20 P.M. D. Case Mos. PP 86-43 and C/Z 86-6 - DALE AND PAMELA SMALLWOOD, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, preannexation zoning of PR-7 S.O. , Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Plan for a 344 unit senior housing project to be located on 23 acres on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 1400 feet east of Cook Street. Mr. Diaz stated that public hearing items #D & #H should ultimately be continued based on discussions during study session on senior overlay and type of housing. Chairman Crites requested a detailed explanation of the study session discussion. Commission concurred. Mr. Drell indicated that discussions involved defining services provided by developments that provide services other than just housing. He noted that projects are becoming more institutional in nature and how senior overlay applies to institutional uses should be determined. He stated that item #D was conventional senior housing. He indicated that the applicant is making services available if requested, and no longer objects to the affordable housing within the development agreement. Commissioner Richards stated that the concern was the location of the proposed development. He indicated there were three basic types of congregate care which have to be addressed as they relate to the senior overlay. He felt the commission and staff needed to come up with a better concept, which would only take a little time, or suggested the possibility of getting a consultant. He indicated that these decisions wou i d benefit both the city and the developer. Commissioner Downs stated that the CC&R's could address some this and agreed with comments by Commissioner Richards. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMKR 2, 1966 Chairman Crites noted that Charter Communities was different because it was offering nursing facilities. He indicated that this case was offering straight senior citizen housing and is willing to include the 25% affordable housing, if the property discussed seems appropriate for senior housing, he would be willing to study this. He felt that senior housing versus skilled nursing facilities may not apply to this project. Commissioner Richards indicated that Charter Communities has had an agreement with the city and clarified that it was not strictly apartments. He felt that one problem was that 60% of the facility would provide services that don't have anything to do with housing. He felt staff should come up with a better plan that would not involve a development agreement. Chairman Crites noted that all that was being provided was senior housing, but indicated that more services could be provided at the option of the tenants. Commissioner Richards stated that a change of zone/pre-annexation was being requested, not just the senior housing. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and stated that 15 units to the acre or a total of 344 units was being .. requested. He felt that there would not be a significant traffic Impact. He noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions in the development agreement and indicated that the development agreement applies to the affordable units. Staff recommended approval . Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MRS. PAM SMALLWOOD, applicant, reiterated that the project was not in the senior overlay zone. She indicated that the project had been adjusted downwards and would have less of an impact than the present zoning. She stated that the impact would be comparable to four or five single family units per acre, which concurs with staff's figures. She indicated that she had met with all city council members and felt they would support alternative "A." After describing the amenities provided, Mrs. Smallwood indicated the architect and engineer were available for questioning. Commissioner -Erwood noted that staff had recommended an addition of two swimming pools and one tennis court. Mrs. Smallwood stated that she would comply with that recommendation to provide two swimming it *moo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 pools and one tennis court. She requested that the tennis court be %00 installed as part of phase II. Commissioner Richards asked if full kitchens and amenities would be provided. Mrs. Smallwood answered yes. Mr. Diaz stated it would be similar to what other country clubs provide. Commissioner Richards asked for and received clarification on the amount of rent for the affordable units and the calculation process. Mrs. Smallwood stated that they would charge approximately 1 .50 to 1 .75 per square foot, equaling $600-$750 per month. Chairman Crites asked about a provision for guest parking. Mrs. Smallwood indicated that spaces were being provided. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. VAN CADENHEAD offered testimony stating that senior housing was needed in the city. He expressed disappointment because the city has been "dragging its feet." He felt that the need for senior housing in the Coachella Valley was being ignored. MR. PAUL KANEKO, Indian Wells Planning Director, reiterated the concerns of Indian Wells as addressed in his letter of May 8, 1986. He felt that the reduction from 27 units to 15 units had not mitigated the concerns expressed in that letter. He also felt the project was still too dense and would create traffic problems. In response to questions from commission, Mr. Kaneko indicated that Indian Wells did not provide senior housing in the city and had not attempted to provide same. Commissioner Richards also asked that the city be notified of the convention center being planned for Indian Wells. Mr. Kaneko stated that the matter would be addressed in an environmental impact report to be sent to the city for comment in November or December. Commissioner Whitlock asked if there was any concern expressed by Desert Horizons. Mr. Kaneko replied that because of the shortness of notice, he did not have an opportunity to notify all parties concerned. MR. JIM HALE, Desert Horizons, stated that he had attended three or four prior meetings and indicated there were concerns regarding density and traffic. He indicated that he was not opposed to senior housing on that site. He felt there were 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1966 tow still questions that needed answers. He stated that the Smallwood attorney called to have a meeting with Desert Horizons, but cancelled. He felt that in the initial project hearings there was a spirit of cooperation that could be felt between Indian Wells and Palm Desert that seemed to have eroded. He indicated that the citizens of Indian Wells would also like to be informed about their new proposals. Mrs. Smallwood addressed the concerns of Mr. Hale outlining the changes that had been made to the design of the project. She stated again that the impacts would be less than the single family zoning. Chairman Crites asked about Mrs. Smallwood's attempts to meet with Desert Horizons. Mrs. Smallwood answered that she contacted the secretary and outlined the changes; she also told them to call with any questions. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Whitlock stated that based on the testimony and willingness of the developer to provide senior housing, she did not see a problem with the project being approved with Alternate A. She indicated that they would be providing affordable housing and expressed agreement with the project. Commissioner Downs stated that he was in favor of the project based �..r on the revisions that had been made. Commissioner Erwood indicated that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the city's intent and was willing to supply an additional two pools and tennis court. He stated that he had no objections to the project. Commissioner Richards felt there was a substantial reduction in the number of units and he had no objections because only housing was being provided with amenities typical to country club living. Chairman Crites felt that the addition of the two pools and one tennis court should be reviewed by the architectural commission added as a condition of approval . Commission and applicant concurred. He also felt that the applicant had given residents of Desert Horizons ample opportunity for discussion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 } Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1179, approving (alternate A, 15 units to the acre/344 units) , subject to the conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. G. Case No. VAR 86-5 - FLYING BUTTRESS, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to section 25. 16.050 (development standards for R-1 lots) specifically to reduce the required lot area from 8000 square feet to 6420 square feet and to reduce the required lot width from a minimum 70 feet to a minimum 60 feet in order to facilitate a future lot split of the existing 12840 square foot lot located at the southwest corner of El Cortez Way and Santa Ynez Avenue. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the resolution to deny VAR 86-5 as outlined in the staff report. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. VICTOR VILLENEUVE, representing owner Mr. Greg Lahey, stated that the owner would like to divide the lot to make it more consistent with the surrounding lots. Mr. Villeneuve stated that smaller lots have been divided in this area. He felt the variance should be approved based on the parcel in question not being consistent with the east lots, the division would not be unique, and it would comply zoning requirements, and noted that the Mentzer lot had recently been divided. He indicated the division would bring the lot in conformance with the east side lots. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. GREG LAHEY, owner, informed commission that he visits the property 6-7 times per year and has been the owner for 10 years. He felt that building his home on this lot would make it over-scaled. He indicated that he has always kept the lot free of debris. He noted that it is an old neighborhood and indicated that small lots are the character of this tract. Mr. Lahey outlined the size of the lots surrounding his property. He felt that the only thing that has changed in this 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 neighborhood in the last 10 years was deterioration and felt his development of the property would promote neighborhood improvement. He also indicated that some incentive was needed. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Lahey if he planned to developed the property in the near future. Mr. Lahey replied maybe in four-five months. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards indicated that while it was a difficult decision for staff to decide, he was persuaded to agree with the applicant. Commissioner Whitlock was concerned about creating a precedent. Chairman Crites stated that he was not persuaded by the applicant because of the lot size. Commissioner Erwood agreed with Commissioner Richards because the closer lots were smaller. Commissioner Richards stated that the city was trying to promote development in this area and noted that it would be for single family development, which the city would like to have develop. Commissioner Richards indicated that he would like to condition the approval with a time frame, but felt it might be difficult for the applicant. Mr. Diaz indicated that if this variance was granted for 1200 square feet, it might be difficult later on to deny 1300 square feet to subdivide. Chairman Crites also noted that the size of the lot would not preclude development of that lot. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at the September 16, 1986 meeting. Carried 3-2 (Chairman Crites and Commissioner Whitlock voting no. ) CHAIRMAN CRITES CALLED AT FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:58 P.M. H. Case No. PP 86-37 and PM 21812 - C.T.K.O., Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan implementing conditions of PM 21812 to allow construction of a 117 bed convalescent , non-ambulatory skilled nursing facility and a 210 bed "residential group home" for the elderly 15 %Mo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 on 10 acres in the PR-5 zone at Country Club and Cook Street. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report and described the amenities . Staff asked for commission direction/determination for institutional uses. Chairman Crites asked if the project met all requirements of the senior overlay zone. Ms. Sass replied no. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. DICK OLIPHANT, applicant, felt the project needed careful consideration and noted that the property in question has been previously approved but wished to improve and create a more liveable facility for seniors. He noted that if the proposed project was not acceptable, they would build the original project. He indicated they would be licensed by the State of California and informed commission that plans had to be submitted by November 1, 1986 or the certificate for nursing would expire. Mr. Oliphant described the amenities that would be provided by the project and stated that it wou 1 d be controlled by the State Department of Social Services. He indicated that it was an institutional facility under Title 22 and nursing by State of California. He requested approval as an institutional use. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the applicant was considering the whole project as institutional . Mr. Oliphant replied yes. Commissioner Richards asked if staff could create a category for institutional use. Mr. Diaz replied yes, but expressed concern for similar projects in other zones asking for institutional use ( i .e. R-1) which would not be allowed. Commissioner Downs noted that the applicant was not asking for a zone change. Commissioner Richards suggested approval without the senior overlay zone. Commissioner Erwood indicated the project could be allowed with a license requirement; Mr. Diaz replied that Charter Communities was asking for the same thing but in a different zone. Chairman Crites asked commission what would be done with project that are half and half because all fall under Title 22. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 Commissioner Richards stated that it appeared to be a straight nursing home. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. GEORGE MARZICOLA expressed concern for the five acre parcels that have private easements. He felt that the city needed to look to the future. Mr. Marzicola outlined the background on how the easements/right-of-ways were granted by the government in 1959. He indicated they were considered collector streets and stated that there would be no way to utilize existing access if they were cut off from Country Club. He suggested moving the project 330 feet east to allow access. Mr . Diaz stated that he did not believe it was the city's responsibility to provide access to land locked parcels unless there was a recorded easement. He also noted there was a moratorium in effect for the north sphere area. MR. CHARLES HAVER, 74-390 Highway 111, stated that no building has taken place since 1975 and felt development was needed, but not if it would be injurious. He felt that access should not wow be eliminated. Mr. Diaz felt that the city should not place itself in the position of assuring access to land locked parcels. Mr. Erwin confirmed that it would not be appropriate and was not a responsibility of the city. Mr. Marzicola stated that the city has a responsibility for the well being of all its citizens, with the ultimate concern for traffic flow, storm drain, and emergency vehicle access. MR. ROBERT BARTON, Charter Communities, stated that he was not speaking in opposition to the project, but wished to express concern over the lack of consistency within the city. He stated that h i s project that has been approved has five levels governed by Title 22 and the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health and appealed to the commission to keep a consistency within the city policy and licensing. Mr. Oliphant noted that Mr. Marzicola would have access to Cook Street. He asked that the commission consider that when the altius project is built access would be provided. 17 W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 Commissioner Downs felt that the project met all the guidelines for No institution use in the PR zone and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Richards stated that the nursing home appears to be compatible at this time. He noted that the city was in the middle of a study with an outside consultant evaluating what should be constructed in the north sphere. He indicated that this would be the first project in this location. He also noted that a convalescent/nursing home was being provided and not apartments. Commissioner Richards felt the project was compatible with the altius project and indicated that the Marzicola easement problem would be solved with that land is developed. Institutional was recommended without the senior overlay zone. Chairman Crites stated that the area is under a moratorium and asked what would happen if the project was approved and did not conform with the consultant's recommendation of what should be built. Mr. Diaz replied that the commission could rehear projects that have obtained approval and then disapprove them, unless a building permit has been issued. Mr. Erwin indicated that the commission could Initiate the hearings. Chairman Crites expressed concern for approving projects while definitions have not been made. He felt that this project should not be used as a definition just because it was submitted first. Commissioner Erwood felt that it was a strict interpretation of a nursing home. Chairman Crites indicated that a portion of the project was not hospital and provided kitchens. Chairman Crites felt that because commission was dealing with senior housing, they would be setting standards as well as approving a project. Commissioner Richards stated that this was the closest description to a convalescent use that he had seen presented. Chairman Crites felt that long-term problems might be created. Mr. Diaz stated that if commission instructed staff to prepare a resolution of approval this would allow two weeks for staff to meet with the city attorney. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, instructing staff to prepare a resolution for approval , approving C.T.K.O. as an "institutional" use. Carried 4-1 (Chairman Crites voting no.) 18 rnl MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 I. Case No. PP 86-39 - HELIOS I LTD, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan and parcel map to allow construction of 150 apartment units on 30 acres in the PR-5 zone at the northeast corner of Country Club and Portola. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report and staff concerns. Staff recommended approval . Chairman Crites asked about the parking extension versus parking in the driveway. Ms. Sass indicated cars could pull up in front of the garage. Commissioner Erwood indicated that access should not cut off to the garage. Chairman Crites asked if the two car minimum of vehicular stacking would be sufficient. Ms. Sass replied that it was standard. Chairman Crites drew attention to public works condition #7 and asked if the landscaping maintenance along Country Club required bonding. Mr. Diaz replied that bonding should be required and was included in public works condition #7. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. DAVE ISAACS, Laguna Nigel , expressed concern over the elongated driveway. He felt it would not look good. He stated that they were providing much more parking by a number of 10 compared to other projects that were presented earlier. He felt that two parking spaces per unit would be fair. He noted that it was very expensive to install below ground parking and also noted that he was providing 27 guest parking facilities, which equals 1 112 per unit. Commissioner Richards indicated that the project was acceptable to him. Mr. Isaacs stated they would be expensive rents. Commissioner Richards expressed the desire to see more of these projects. Mr. Isaacs indicated that he was not through with the financial aspects for the case and might come back for a higher density. 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. Chairman Crites stated that he had concerns with the elongated driveway. 19 %NW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 �1 Mr. Diaz indicated that in this case staff had no concerns over the parking. Commissioner Downs agreed with staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1180, approving PP 86-39, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. L. Case No. PP 86-40 - BREEZE AIR CONDITIONING, Applicant Request for approval of a 22,533 square foot industrial/office building located in a service industrial zone at the west side of St. Charles Place, 275 feet north of Mediterranean (Lots 32 & 33, Tract 13915) . Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and indicated that a determination was needed from the commission as to office areas in the industrial area becoming ancillary. Staff rrr1 recommended approval . Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN, representative, felt the issue was based on the parking. He asked for approval of the project as presented. Mr. Holden stated that twice as many parking spaces are required for office than for a sheet metal operation. Commissioner Richards indicated that the city has been having too many industrial projects turn up as offices. Commissioner Richards asked if staff felt there would be any parking problems. Mr. Smith replied no. Commissioner Downs stated that parking was a problem at all times during the day. He felt there was not enough parking on a square foot basis. Mr. Holden stated that 40% of the project would be office and that they would provide 4 spaces per every 1000 square feet for parking instead of 2 spaces per 1000 square feet. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 ..► 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. Chairman Crites asked if sheet metal was considered manufacturing or warehouse. Commissioner Down replied manufacturing. Mr. Holden noted that if 2 spaces were required per 1000 square feet that would equal 45 spaces and the project has proposed 50 spaces. Mr. Diaz indicated that if there wasn't enough parking provided, complaints would be coming in and noted that the city was monitoring the parking for Strother's development and felt there could be a reduction of office space required if problems were determined. Mr. Smith indicated that all future occupants complying with parking requirements of the ordinance was included as a condition of approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1181 , approving PP 86-40, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. Chairman Crites asked how much will commission consider ancillary. Commissioner Downs suggested 20%. Commission concurred. VIIl. MISCELLANEOUS A. Designation of Survey Area for Redevelopment Plan Mr. Yrigoyen outlined the request and asked for approval by adoption of the proposed resolution. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1182, selecting the project area and approving the preliminary plan as set forth in the attached exhibits. Carried 5-0. 21 "MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 B. Lago de Palmas Mr. Diaz indicated this item had been discussed during study session and needed a minute motion to refer the matter to council . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, referring to city council Lago de Palmas for review access onto Portola by minute motion. Carried 5-0. C. Ordinance Statement of Intent Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, determining that statement of intent for all ordinance shall be first. Carried 5-0. 0. Santa Anita Development After discussion, the planning commission reaffirmed its previous decision based on the fact that the uses considered to be related commercial uses can be liberally construed with the too only limit being that the uses be related to a hotel . Commission felt that a farmer's market would be unique and in no way similar to the typical grocery store. After further discussion on the appropriateness of this type of development on this site, it was determined a better use than more restaurants or hotels and commission felt it would be a reasonable, logical , and desirable use for the property. Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, reaffirming the previous approval in the PC (4) zone. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Richards and Whitlock voting no. ) E. Zoning Ordinance Clarification Commissioner Richards requested staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment defining "congregate care" facilities and clarification as to how they pertain to the senior overlay. Commission concurred. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 `NW IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon, felt that with the approval of the gas station under the PC (4) zone, it should also be included in the zoning ordinance. B. MR. PAUL GILMORE, ASL Consulting Engineers, stated that he was told the meeting was to be held at 2:00 p.m. After receiving a copy of the agenda and seeing the order of the agenda, he came to the meeting one hour late and missed his case. He asked for a brief summary of the action. X. COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, to adjourn the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 a.m. wow Gr�+rrirl� • RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec At ATTEST: BUFORD,CRIT , Chairman 23