Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1215 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 15, 1987 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE A TWO-HOUR STUDY SESSION WAS HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM BEGINNING AT 5:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Erwood called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Erwood, Chairman Bob Downs Faith Ladlow Jim Richards Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None %WW Staff Present: Ray Diaz Tim Connor Steve Smith Gregg Holtz Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 24 and December 1 , 1987 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the minutes of November 24 and December 1 , 1987 as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairman Erwood abstained. ) V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent December 10 city council actions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP/CUP 86-50 - R.C. ROBERTS, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension. +err MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1987 B. Case No. PMW 87-20 - MONTEREY INVESTMENT GROUP, Applicant "lei Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to consolidate three parcels into one on property located on the west side of Monterey Avenue, south of Fred Waring Drive. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. Mr. Diaz suggested that the agenda be suspended and the miscellaneous item be heard first. Commission concurred. Vill. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. TT 22712 - SAM ALACANO, Applicant Request for approval of a 100 lot residential subdivision and negative declaration of environmental impact located on the north side of Hovley Lane, 2,000 feet east of Portola Avenue (west of Casablanca) . Mr. Diaz indicated that on page 4 of the conditions of approval #14 b. should be amended to read 20 feet, not. 22. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1266, approving TT 22712, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued 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 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1987 of section 10, more particularly the quarter section south of the Lakes Country Club, east of Mountain View Falls and north of proposed 42nd Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He indicated that a letter had been received from Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott which he would address under rebuttal . Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. LARRY BEVINGTON, representing Parcel A, stated that in general his client would be in agreement with the designation as presented by staff. He expressed concern regarding the annexation process for senior overlay zoning and precise plans. Mr. Diaz explained that if the applicant has received approval from the county, he would have to talk to the city attorney to find out how previous approvals can be accepted. He indicated that if it meets city standards it should be fine. Mr. Bevington stated that February will be the first public hearing on the precise plan and conditional use permit. Mr. Diaz suggested that Mr. Bevington file the application with Palm Desert and have the hearings simultaneously with the county. Mr. Connor indicated that an approval with the county can be accepted by the city. Mr. Bevington asked for a time schedule for the annexation. Mr. Diaz replied that the intent would be to have the matter before LAFCO in February or March. MR. JOHN MCGAY, 78-661 Avenue 42 in Bermuda Dunes, stated that they were within 30 days of submitting a plan for 40 acres and stated that they would like to become part of Palm Desert. MR. DEAN MERTZ, administrator of Good Samaritan, stated that he was in favor of the annexation and staff recommendations as outlined. MR. KEN VOGT, Sandpiper and owner of south half of tract 21338, 41 homes on that portion and 39 homes on the top portion, stated that he is two to three months away from subdividing on the south 41 and expressed concern with development under county standards. He indicated that from discussions with staff, it would be acceptable to come into the city and he felt that as long as the proposed circulation pattern is in accordance and 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1987 led adequate access and fire protection is available they could come into the city. Mr. Diaz stated that there are two access points out of Portola, from the north and south, and service will be better because of less traffic. Mr. Vogt stated that as long as the plan is safe they would not oppose the annexation. MR. CARL ANDERSON, Manhattan Land Development Group, owner of 10 acres of the 19 acre parcel , stated that his tract map is being finalized . He felt that the annexation imposes constraints for building the 39 residential homes in an economical manner. He stated that if the city could assure them that all 39 homes can be built out and with the county fee structure, they would not oppose the annexation. Mr. Diaz indicated that a final map would be fine, noting that our building requirements are UBC and the same as the county. He stated that Palm Desert does not allow wood shake roofs and this is the only difference. He stated that the fee structure is about the same and the school impact fee and lizard fee are the same. Mr. Anderson indicated that the school impact fee had already been paid,; Mr. Diaz explained that it only has to be paid once for the property. Mr. Smith addressed the letter dated December 15 from Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott. He indicated that CEQA guidelines had been met and indicated that not all projects require an environmental impact report. He indicated that a negative declaration had been prepared and staff feels there will be no significant adverse impact on the environment. He stated that public hearings were held and staff is comfortable that there are no environmental impacts that have not been addressed. He indicated that a negative declaration is adequate and informed commission that all cases will be reviewed closely for compliance with CEQA guidelines . Mr. Smith also addressed the comment on page 2 regarding Palm Desert's commitment to street patterns in the eastern sphere of influence. Mr. Smith stated that this comment was taken out of context and read the complete section for the commission from the staff report. Commissioner Richards noted that members of the audience had not seen a copy of the letter under discussion and explained that the letter indicates that the traffic study done by Palm Desert is in error because Indian Well 's traffic study says no traffic problems will be created by five hotels the size of the Marriott and a 400,000 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1987 +wr square foot convention center. He stated that the city plan to investigate what the real numbers will be and take appropriate action to direct traffic in a manner to benefit the people who will live in this area. He indicated that basically this letter is from an attorney that says Indian Well 's traffic study is good and ours is not and we have not looked into it deeply enough. He noted that staff used state guidelines to explain how the conclusions were reached. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Downs felt that staff did an excellent job and noted that people don't seem to have a problem. Commissioner Richards concurred and noted that concentrated areas of residential wish to come into the city; staff heard the testimony and commission recommends to keep similar zoning consistent and the senior overlay for that one particular project is consistent with the type of development the commission has encouraged in the past. He felt that Hovley was not adequate to handle traffic generation of 24,000 trips per day. He also felt that people being effected live within our city and commission needs to respond to residents of the area who have unanimously signed petitions to annex into the city. He stated that the staff recommendation was fine. Commissioner Whitlock concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings in support of the general plan adoption and general plan amendment. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1267, recommending to city council approval of GPA 87-5. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting findings in support of the preannexation change of zone. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1268, recommending to city council approval of C/Z 87-I1 . Carried 5-0. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1987 IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Chairman Erwood noted that he received a notice of a planning commissioner's institute meeting in March. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Iq . '' RAMON A. DIAZ, Secret _ATTEST-: 1 > f . ICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman /tm 6