Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1020 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 20, 1987 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE A ONE-HOUR STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Erwood called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. Ill . ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Erwood, Chairman Faith Ladlow Jim Richards Carol Whitlock Members Absent: Commissioner Downs Staff Present: Ray Diaz vow T i m Connor Gregg Holtz Phil Drell Steve Smith Catherine Sass Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of October 6, 1987 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ladlow, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the October 6, 1987 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Whitlock abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the October 8, 1987 city council meeting. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 aw VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 87-16 - MR. AND MRS. PAUL DENT, Applicants Request for approval of merging lots 37 and 38 into one parcel . B. Case No. PMW 87-17 - MR. AND MRS. JIM DENT, Applicant Request for approval of merging lots 31 and 32 into one parcel . Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP 87-29 - DOVELAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact r/ to allow construction of a 7293 square foot retail commercial building on the south side of El Paseo, 180 feet east of San Luis Rey. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the previous meeting regarding this case, describing the changes that had been made. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. CLEMENTE TRANCOSO, 1900 E. Tahquitz McCallum Suite 84 in Palm Springs, agreed with the staff report and indicated that they would also like approval of a variance for one parking space, per site plan #2. Commissioner Ladlow and Mr. Trancoso discussed the reasons for the deletion of the space. Chairman Erwood 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 noted that there was previous discussion with regard to an easement and asked for additional information. Mr. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 Trancoso indicated that the easement was not granted. Commissioner Richards felt that this was the best possible solution under the circumstances. Ms. Sass noted that the actual square footage being requested was 6974. Commissioner Richards indicated that he had no problem with the parking space variance. Action: Commissioner Richards moved to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Mr. Diaz asked that the applicant state for the record that they had read all the conditions of approval , concur with the conditions, and were not told by staff not to object to any conditions. Mr. Trancoso indicated that they comply with the conditions and were not told by staff not to object. Ms. Jan Sher spoke up from the audience and indicated they had not seen the conditions. Chairman Erwood re-opened the public testimony and Commissioner Richards withdrew his motion to adopt the findings and suggested �... that the item be continued until after Item #B to allow the applicant to review the conditions. Commission concurred. B. Case Nos. PP/CUP 86-43 and DA 86-7 Amendment - DALE AND PAMELA SMALLWOOD, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment deleting 33 two and three bedroom apartments from the originally approved 276 unit senior housing project and adding 66 assisted living and skilled nursing units. Amended project will include 243 senior citizen apartments and 66 assisted living/skilled nursing rooms located on 23 acres on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 1400 feet east of Cook Street. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and requested approval . Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MRS. PAMELA SMALLWOOD, 71-111 La Paz Road in Rancho Mirage, stated that since receiving approval , they have done extensive 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 study and research. She indicated that there was a need for skilled nursing on the facility and the philosophy was to preserve the quality of life and create a care-free life style, with emphasis on rehabilitation. She also stated that recently representatives from the Forum Group came to Palm Desert and were referred to her. She stated that Forum Group has been a leading provider of health care for over 20 years, and indicated Forum Group had several representatives present to answer any questions. Mrs. Smallwood introduced Mr. Ron Customs. MR. RON CUSTOMS, Senior Director of Development for Forum Group for over three years, stated that this was a good project and indicated that if they have any questions the vice president of construction and project manager were present. MR. DAVE REYNOLDS provided a description of the site plan. MR. BILL DRAKE, Neptune and Thomas Architects, indicated that they were providing the architectural detail if commission had any questions. He noted that Neptune and Thomas is a very old, established firm. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, Chairman Erwood asked the applicant if she concurred with the conditions of approval and were not told by staff not to object. Mrs. Smallwood indicated that she did comply with the conditions and was not told not to object. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. Commissioner Whitlock felt that changes were good and Commissioner Ladlow concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1258, recommending approval of PP/CUP 86-43 and DA 86-7 to city council . Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no) . A. Continued Case No. PP 87-29 - DOVELAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact r/ 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 to allow construction of a 7293 square foot retail commercial building on the south side of El Paseo, 180 feet east of San Luis Rey. Chairman Erwood asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TRANCOSO stated that the applicants have no objections to the conditions of approval . Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1259, approving PP 87-29, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. C. Case No. TT 22712 - SAM ALACANO, Applicant Request for approval of a 65 lot residential subdivision located on the north side of Hovley Lane, 2000 feet east of Portola Avenue. Chairman Erwood noted for the record that the application was withdrawn per applicant's request and will be resubmitted at a later date. Action: No action required. D. Case No. CUP 87-13 - INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S CENTER, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow conversion of an existing single family dwelling and surrounding property to a preschool facility with a 100 student maximum capacity at this time on a 2.8 acre site in the R-1 10,000 zone on the east side of Portola Avenue, 110 feet south of Old Prospector Trail . Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RON TRIPIANO, 75-231 Painted Drive in Indian Wells, stated that he had spoken to Joe Gaugush about public works condition #3 and the words "including traffic safety lighting" should have been deleted. Mr. Holtz concurred. Upon request by Commissioner Richards, Mr. Tripiano described the changes to be made per State requirements to the existing building. Commissioner Richards asked about the swimming pool . Mr. Tripiano stated that they were keeping it so that swimming classes could be taught. Commissioner Whitlock requested information regarding parking requirements and circulation being changed. Mr. Tripiano stated that staff has not seen the new plan and described the changes, which took care of the problems. Mr. Diaz stated that he would like public works condition #10 modified to read only one driveway approach allowed. Mr. Tripiano did not think anything would be achieved by this action and suggested working with staff, but not holding up the project. Commissioner Richards pointed out that this is a very heavily traveled street and noted that for 100 students, 200 entrances and exits from Portola would be required. He felt that if commission were to get involved there should be a turn-in lane for cars coming from the south because it is a dangerous spot. Mr. Holtz informed commission that at that point on Portola with striping the travel way is approximately 20 feet wide and could accommodate a 12 foot travel lane and eight foot parking. Commissioner Richards asked if this would require just repainting or construction. Mr. Holtz stated that eight feet additional width could be used as a turning lane without removing curb and gutter. Commissioner Richards asked how many employees there would be and Mr. Tripiano replied approximately six. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. BURT BENSON stated that he lives directly behind the subject property and did not want 100 kids behind his house. He indicated that while this was a public hearing to decide if this should be allowed, from previous discussion it sounded like commission had already made up its mind. Commission explained that a part of the hearing process was to discuss all aspects of the project. low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 r.. MR. HURB FLEMMINGTON indicated that he lives directly across the street. He stated that he has lived there ten years. He felt there was more traffic than on Highway 74 and noted that there are many accidents. He indicated that he has ten grandchildren that can't come to his house because they can't play in the front. He expressed concern regarding the amount and speed of traffic. MR. GEORGE CHALLETS, 74-080 Covered Wagon Trail , stated that he was the property owner 210 feet from the west property line. He indicated that preschools are needed and noted that he was an educator in charge of 15 schools. He stated that his main concern was the noise factor and played a tape of playground noise for the commission. He felt that some schools are built before homes so that people moving in know there is a school there. Mr. Challets also felt that their neighborhood was peaceful and hated to see it changed. He expressed concern regarding traffic and noise and suggested that commission go out to a school yard and listen to the noise. MR. SEGLER, 74- 111 Covered Wagon Trail , expressed concern regarding noise and traffic. He felt that traffic from Fairway would become a problem. low Chairman Erwood asked if the applicant wished to re-address the commission. MR. TRIPIANO stated that with regard to traffic, they would like to work with public works to discuss options. He indicated that noise would be blocked on the Portola side with a six foot masonry wall and landscaping. He also indicated that the existing house is setback 160 feet from the property line. He explained that not all the children would be outside at the same time and felt that this location would allow adjacent properties to use the facilities without having to travel to Cathedral City for child care. He explained that this project would lend itself to the commercial nature of the intersection. Commissioner Richards noted that staff usually recommends that the developer talk to the neighbors and indicated that commission will usually support adjacent neighbors. Mr. Tripiano indicated that he did not canvass the neighborhood prior to the hearing; however, he noted that staff had only received three responses until today of which one was positive. He also felt that the noise issue was being overstated. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. o.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 Commissioner Whitlock supported Commissioner Richard's statements. Chairman Erwood noted that there is no requirement that when a public hearing is noticed that people have to call the city to register any complaints. He indicated that the public hearing is the place where objections should be stated. Chairman Erwood felt there were three specific problem areas: 1 ) traffic on Portola being quite heavy and this type of facility would increase the problem; 2) noise is a problem and differs from the project on Monterey and Country Club because the homeowners knew there would be a shopping center; and 3) this is a residential area even though Portola has changed the nature of quietness, it is still residential . He felt that this project would be injurious to surrounding properties. Commissioner Ladlow stated that she could appreciate this type of proposal , but felt that it was in the wrong place. Commissioner Richards felt that the applicant had not done his homework and that a six foot wall would not mitigate noise. He indicated that staff should be directed under miscellaneous comments at a future meeting to come up with an area where this type of use would be acceptable. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ladlow, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial . Carried 4-0. E. Case No. C/Z 87-12 - CITY Of PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include Service Industrial for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multi-family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and listed the positive and negative aspects of annexing into the city. Mr. Drell explained that a letter had been received by an owner in the industrial area in opposition, but indicated that the actual uses permitted in the county zoning and in Palm Desert are virtually identical , but a business license would be required for Palm Desert, of which many businesses already have. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MS. KIM BORDERS, 74-607 Gary, stated that she initiated the petition. She indicated that she would like city standards to eliminate eyesores and felt that the city would clean up the area. She also stated that the property value is not what it should be. MR. JERRY ALLEN, 74-573 Meryl Drive, reviewed the history of the area. He stated that under the county sometimes it takes 90 days to get streets swept. He explained that some street widths are too narrow, but hoped to come into the city. MR. FRANK MOTT, 73-655 Shadow Mountain Drive, stated that the �.+. industrial park was there before the city and indicated that they already have trash service and police and fire protection. He did not feel the city had the right to usurp his property. MS. NANCY VANCUR, owner of three homes on Meryl , stated that Meryl is clean and neat and everyone seems to take care of their property, but acknowledged that some streets have problems (i .e. cars being repaired) and felt that whether it is city or county, the problems can be taken care of. She stated that she has called the sheriffs and they have responded within five minutes. She indicated that she did not want to change to too many rules and regulations. MR. BURT KAPLAN, Rancho Mirage, indicated that he was an owner of five acres of industrial property. He felt that if the residential areas want to be annexed he has no problems with that, but felt that the industrial area should be handled separately because annexation would be detrimental to the industrial area. Additional fees would be required for businesses that don't already operate in the city. He also stated that they store some large RV's which are visible over the fence. MR. MIKE HAINES, 74-643 Gary, indicated that the LAFCO people `, could decide what would be best, but stated he was present to 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1967 ■e protect his interest and investment in his home. He felt that the neighborhood was pretty good, but needed city ordinances to clean it up. MS. TRACEY MOORE, Salton Beach, owner of property on Leslie, stated that a house near there was condemned by the county several months ago, property is not kept cleaned up and auto repair work is being done in front yards. She felt if property values were to increase, the property would need to be annexed into the city. MS. SHERRIE HANNEY, 74-643 Gary, stated that she has called 911 and one t i me they ca 1 1 ed back and sa i d that they wou 1 d not be coming out for a couple of hours. She also felt that the area needs to be cleaned up. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. Commissioner Whitlock questioned separating the two areas and Mr. Diaz responded that from past experience, LAFCO would object. Mr. Drell explained the LAFCO process. Commissioner Richards stated that the commission was following the proper rules and would make a motion to pass this to city council . Mr. Diaz noted that another legal notice will be sent and the meeting will be scheduled before city council in November. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1260, recommending approval of C/Z 87-12 to city council . Carried 4-0. CHAIRMAN ERWOOD CALLED A TEN MINUTE RECESS AT 9:28 P.M. F. Case Nos. GPA 87-5 and C/Z 87-11 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a general plan amendment to institute the city's general plan, prezone in accordance with the city's zoning ordinance and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains to a part of the city ' s eastern sphere of influence specifically 160 acres in the southeast quarter of section 10, more particularly the quarter r1 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 section south of the Lakes Country Club, east of Mountain View Fails and north of proposed 42nd Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. BUD CRATON, 281 Wild Horse Drive, stated that he was present to strongly endorse annexing. He stated that within the next 30 days there will be a vote of the homeowners. He spoke to Corkey Larson regarding the 30 acre piece and she inferred that if annexation commences, they will step aside. MR. LARRY BEVINGTON, 720 S. Ramona, spoke in opposition and indicated that he was representing the G. Miller development and 40 acres . He felt that the notice was inadequate, no general plan designation for the prezoning exists, and the owners have already filed a request with the county for a precise plan and change of zone. He also felt it was inappropriate of staff to bring this item before the commission prior to the WRT plan being completed. He indicated that the petition was inadequate and that something was behind this whole process and requested deletion of the 40 acre parcel if commission plans to proceed. He advised that commission move cautiously. MR. CARL ANDERSON, 20 W. Pico in Carlsbad, owner of property on the northeast corner of Hovley and Carlotta, spoke in opposition. He indicated that a tentative tract is now being finalized for Tract 21338 and indicated that building department rules vary and felt that annexation would cause costly building redesign. He informed commission that if assurances could be made that their conditions and fee structure would remain with county standards, they would not object. MR. JOHN GARVIS, Rancho Mirage, owner of parcel A, stated that the notice of the meeting came to him yesterday. He felt that commission should move cautiously and indicated that people concerned should be given proper notice. MR. KEN VOLKS, Southwest Developers in San Diego, stated that he was working with Mr. Anderson on Tract 21338 and indicated they are working with the final subdivision map. He noted that regarding setbacks, the county has five feet on each side and the city has five feet on one side and nine feet on the other rrr and, therefore, are obviously opposed to the annexation. He 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 further noted that they would not object is they could be assured that they could build with their present plans. Mr. Diaz stated that something could be worked out to grant these assurances, with the exception of wood-shake roofs. Mr. Volks suggested meeting with planning in closed session. Mr. Diaz stated that necessity of a meeting would depend on the commission's ultimate decision. MR. DEAN BURK, from Good Samaritan, reviewed some history of the property and indicated that the people of Good Samaritan were requesting that. Palm Desert recommend that it be annexed into the city. He stated that they would like the additional police protection and other benefits that being in the city would bring. Commissioner Richards noted that Good Samaritan is an institutional use and requested that Mr. Burk provide the city with a list of the interested persons. Mr. Burk indicated that there are 120 people who were willing to sign the petition. MR. GEORGE MARZICOLA, local broker and real estate investor, indicated that they had donated land to Good Samaritan and would consequently work with Gook Samaritan to annex into the city. He stated that Larkspur Enterprises was in escrow and that the Lakes has the option on the property. He also stated for the record that it Is h i s intention to annex h i s 30 acres into the city. MR. ALLEN L.EVINE, Sunrise, expressed concern regarding WRT's recommendation for El Dorado and Hovley and felt that the density was inordinately high in light of Mountain View Falls to the west. Chairman Erwood asked for comments by the planning commission. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she was not prepared to take a stand at this time and felt that the WRT plan needed to be studied prior to making a decision. Commissioner Richards felt that the proposal was not ready for the commission at this time. Mr. Diaz suggested getting the application for the other annexation and talking to WRT about Hovley and Eldorado Drive and density. He recommended a continuance. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 Chairman Erwood supported commission and noted that the public testimony would remain open. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, continuing this item to December 15, 1987. Carried 4-0. G. Case No. ZOA 87-4 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to the Palm Desert Ordinance Section 25.56.200 regarding traffic sight obstructions. Mr. Diaz explained that this item was before commission in 1985 and was approved but was inadvertently never forwarded to council . He indicated that because of the time lapse, the resolution was before commission for adoption. Commissioner Richards provided the history of the amendment. Chairman Erwood o ened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. r...r There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1261 , recommending approval of ZOA 87-4 to city council . Carried 4-0. Vill . MISCELLANEOUS A. Mr. Diaz asked who would be attending the joint meeting on Friday. Chairman Erwood indicated that he would not be able to attend. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 X. COMMENTS Commissioner Richards instructed staff to get together with WRT in the next two months and try to come up with a location suitable for pre-schools. Commissioner Whitlock recommended that the traffic speed on Portola be checked. Commissioner Richards concurred that traffic is fast. Mr. Holtz indicated that it was more of an enforcement problem. Chairman Erwood suggested that the sheriff's department be contacted. Mr. Holtz indicated that staff could ask them to increase patrolling and enforcement. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adjourning the meeting. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secr tar ATT/Z__ -- ICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman /tm moo 14