The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0516 NII.NI.II'ES P�1LM DESF�`I' PI�INNII� Qt�T�QSSZON N�I'II� ZUFSLIAY - N4�Y 16, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC (�1I�t C�'JUNCIL C�i�IIt 73-510 FRED WAEtIIdG DRIVE '� �t � �c � * * �c �r � � * * * * � * * * * * � * * * � * � I. CALL TO ORDgt C�airman Er�x�od called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLIDGE OF AI,L�I� Catmissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Erwc�od, C�aizman Jim Richards C�'Lrol Whitlock Members Absent: Bob Dc�ms Sabby Jonathan � Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Kandy 1111en Phi 1 Juy Catherine Sass � Tonya Nbnroe IV. APPROVAL OF NiINtTI'FS: Consideration for appraval the May 2, 1989 meeting minutes. Action: Nbved by Calmissioner Whitlock, seconded by CornrLissioner Richards, approving the May 2, 1989 meeting minutes as suY.xnitted. Carried 3-0. VI. S;[I�Tg1EZY OF Q7[JNCIL AiCI'ION Mr. Diaz reviewed pertinent items of the May 11, 1989 council meeting. Catanissioner Richards voiced opposition to the proposed Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. VII. �NSII�fP CALE�VDIIR None. � NLLN[IPFS PALM DESERT PLANI�TII� QNMISSIC[�I N�Y 16, 1989 � VIII. PUBLIC HEARTN�S A. Case No. QJP 89-3 - CABLE & KYLEE, Applicant Request for approval of to constn.ict a 13 uriit senior apar-t�nent project on the southeast cozner of Catalina Way and San Carlos. Staff noted that a continuance was requested to June 6, 1989. Chairman Er��od opened the public hearing and asked if any�ne present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPP()6ITION to the proposal. There was no one and C7iairman Er��od requested a motion of continuance. Action: Nbved by Catmissioner Whitlock, seconded by Co�mLissioner Richards, continuing CUP 89-3 to June 6, 1989. Carried 3-0. B. Case No. TT 24591 - SAM ATID K1�Tf-iL.�1 A,I�q, Applicant Request for appraval of a 16 lot single family subdivision, south of Havley Lane, 1600 feet east of Nbnterey Avenue. � Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report. Mr. Joy noted that the applicant was reserving his right to protest the drainage fee. Mr. Diaz indicated that the council wr�uld deterniine the impact and make the decision on the drainage situation. CanlLissioner Richards asked what the approximate 7'C7NIF' fee would cost this developnent. Staff noted that the fee w�uld be determined by trip generation and did not have an ar�swer at that time, but felt it would not be more than $2Q0 per sitigle family residence. Chairman Erwood o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the cannission. MR. RICK GUTTERSON, Mainiero, Smith & Associates, inforn�ed conmission that tt�e conditions of appraval were acceptable and they wished to reserve their right to p�otest the drainage fee and appeal to the city council. He felt that the TtJMF fee would be approximately $4,000 per acre for a total of $20,000. • Corraitissioner Richards disagreed with the drainage fee in this situation and suggested to the applicant that he appeal. 2 �, NaN[JI'ES PAI� DESERT P'I,ArIlsi2� �.M�IISSIC[�1 I�1Y 16, 1989 r.r � Chairman EYwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAWR or . OPP06ITIC[�I to the proposal. There was no one and C2zairn�an �r�n�od closed the public testilriony. Action: Nbved by Cannissioner Whitlock, seconded by Ca�aussioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. . ; Maved by Camtissioner Whitlock, seconded by Catmissioner Richards, ; adopting Plaru�irig Caimission Resolution No. 1354, approvirig TT 24591, subject to conditio�ns. Carried 3-0. , IX. MISCE[�LAI�IDOUS A. Ca.� N�. PP 88-23 - GD012GE FIS(�IE�t, Applicant �. � Request for clarification for a director' s � modification/change of conditions of approval. Ms. Sass reviewed the approved project and indicated that as a condition of appraval the applicant was to seci.ire a reciprocal access � agreement. She noted that the property awner to the east refused to grant access. Ms. Sass indicated that the appraved building would have to be reduced 500 feet in order tor the applicant to oomply with the parking requirement, or cannission could remove the condition and . after the frontage road was vacated and provided the needed spaces, : the applicant could request an expansion of 500 feet. Ms. Sass also � rx�ted that Mrs. Stoltzman had sut�u.tted a letter that was distributed to the catmission autlining her concerns. Ms. Sass responded to , several of those items. NIR. G�ORGE FISC�,It addressed the catmission and indicated that 17 parking spaces wr�uld be provided in front of the building. He indicated that the shared parking would be a great help to Mrs. Stoltzman. He indicated that he w�uld like the cannission ' to give him the appraved building size with the understandi.ng that the frontage road parkuzg area would be pravided in the future. Cannissioner Richard.s asked if Mr. Fischer would have a problem with the building being reduced. Mr. Fischer replied no, but rx�ted �hat - :. if N�s. Stoltzman were to agree to the shared parking, he wr�uld re- stripe and provide landscaping that first time. 3 �ri. NID�A.TP4�� PAIM DFSII2T F'LATIIVII� Q1�TZLSSICN 1�1Y 16, 1989 � DR. STOLTZM�IN, 76-180 Trail in Indian Wells, infom�d camussion that he asked the architect why he designed the building too big for the parking and the architect responded that it would maximize Ntr. Fischer's profits. He did not feel that was justification for granting the use of their property for parkirig. Dr. Stoltzman also indicated that he offered the use of the parking for a fee of $10,000, which Y� felt was a reasonable amount. He stated that he had no problem with diagonal re-striping, but wittwut access there would be no way to reach the parking spaces. He suggested a condition be placed to allaw them access and credit for the two spaces they w�uld lose. Mr. Diaz stated that Mr. Fischer could not be required to give the access and r�at obtain access. It w�uld have to be mutzaal access, rx>t one-way access. After further discussion, aannission felt that a decision should ' reflect present conditions and if the parking were to become available in the future, a building expansian could be requested. Action: Nbved by Cannissioner Rir,�iards, seconded by Cannissioner Whitlock, appraving a 500 foot buildirlg reduction by minute motion. Carried 3- � 0. X. ORAL OCNMJNIC�ITIC�15 None. XI. CJQ�IIS Conmissioner Richards stated that he was attempting to obtain sar►e verification/topos for the project at Mesa View and Highway 74. He indicated that he would like the topos for Indian Springs and the Sturmit. Nh�. Gaugush indicated that information had previously been provided to the conmission frcm Indian Springs and the Sw�rmit's topos. Commissioner Richards requested a review of those topos/information. Catmissioner Richards felt that the property had � bee,n six to seven feet belaw grade and when the property developed it was six to seven feet abave grade and he wanted concrete facts and ,. wanted to see an original grade as a ca�arison with what is there ; rx7w. Mr. Diaz informed aamussion that a report would be done on this lot for council and a copy wr�uld be prr�vided to the cannission. 4 � NiINITI'FS PAI�I DESERT P'I,AI�IIVII� QTM�QSSICN N�Y 16, 1989 , +r..► Corrmissioner Whitlock wanted to lu�aw if the tennis court lighting wr�uld be appealed. Mr. Diaz stated that the applicant had one more day to appeal and rx�ted that twe� letters frcm residents had been received in opposition. XII. Nbved by Carmissioner Whitlock, seconded by Ckxrmissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting. Canied 3-0. The meetirig was adjo d at 8:02 p.m. . �!� ' RANI�N A. DIAZ, Secret � ATTEST: / I . / �': � � . � I�.i : /' ��'�/. t% � � RIQ-IARD ER:�+100D, C�airman /� 5 �1rr