Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0606 ............._.. .. . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANN13G CXI-MSSICN MERTIM SAY - aM 6, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNKM CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARM DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER . Chairman Erwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Erwood led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Rn-ood, Chairma l Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Carol Whitlock Members Absent: Nome Members Present: Ray Diaz Dick Folkers Kandy Allen Phil Joy Catherine Sass Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MCNLYIES: Request for approval the May 16, 1989 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Carissioner Whitlock, seconded by Ctnudssioner Richards, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). VI. SUMMARY OF COUNM ACTION Mr. Diaz stated that there were no items directly impacting the planning ocRmission at the council meeting of May 25, 1989. VII. OONSENP CALENDAR None. WAr NIIN[TIES PALM DESERT PLANUNG CCM ISSICN JUNE 6, 1989 l VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CJZ 89-5 - DONN AMID JOANN THIELMAN, Applicants Request for approval of a change of zone from R-1 (single family) to R-3 (8,000) (1 residential unit per 8,000 square feet) to facilitate a possible future conditional use permit application to locate a ccmT*=ial parking lot on this property which would serve an office professional development on the adjacent property to the west; subject property being located at the northwest corner of Garden Square and Larrea Street. Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to June 20. He noted that the meeting had been continued from May 16, 1989 to allow the applicant to work with the neighborhood residents. Mr. Diaz informed ccninission that a letter had been submitted in opposition to the project signed by the neighbors. Chairman Erwood ecened. the public testimony and asked if anyone was present representing the applicant. There being no response, Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVM or OPPOSITIC N to the proposal. MR. =ERICK THON, 45-390 Garden Square, stated that they had hoped to work out a canprcnise with the developer, but that was not possible. He informed ccnuission that he had lived there since 1962. The reasons for the opposition to the project were property values would be decreased, traffic congestion would increase and create a bottle-neck at the exit, the lives of neighborhood children would be endangered, air pollution would increase, noise would increase, and the character of the neighborhood would be lost. He stated that based on the residents' opposition, he oould see no reason for a continuance. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. Canmissioners Richards and Whitlock spoke against a oontinuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Cznissioner Whitlock, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption on June 20, 1989. Carried 5-0. 2 MINLnEs PALM DESERT PLANNING OU44ISSION DUNE 6, 1989 B. Continued Case No. CUP 89-3 - CABLE & RYLEE, Applicant Request for approval of to construct a 13 unit senior apartment project on the southeast corner of Catalina Way and San Carlos. Staff explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to June 20, hence no staff report was included in the commission packets. Ccnnnission directed staff to include staff reports for all cases. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant was present to address the ccnudssion. There being no reply, Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. RAOUL SANDERS, 44-401 San Pascual, expressed concern about the residential area becoming an apt complex area and ccnmrcial area. Cam-nissioner Richards explained the extensive hearing process that had taken place to implement the Palma Village Plan. Mr. Diaz asked for Mr. Sanders' phone number to schedule a meeting wav with him to review the project and identify his concerns. Chairman Erwood asked if the affected residents present could attend the meeting on June 20. An affirmative answer was given by the audience. Chairman Erwood also explained that if anyone could not be present, a letter could be submitted outlining their concerns. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing CUP 89-3 to June 20, 1989. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CZ 89-10 - CHAZAN CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and change of zone to allow construction of a 5,770 square foot office building on the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Anselmo Avenue. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. 3 MINUPES PALM DESERT PL ANNIM C XJ-MSSICfJ JUNE 6, 1989 Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. PAUL HENRY, project architect, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards ccmmended the applicant on his developments and ability to work well with staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1355, recommending approval of PP/CZ 89-10 to city council. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. TT 24632 - LUNDIN DEVEL IMEW OD., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 77.8 gross acres into 169 single family lots and 2 additional lots set aside for 220 future apartment units at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report. He stated that a letter frcm Mrs. Irma Mendelson of 41-752 Aventine Court had been received in opposition due to increased traffic congestion and decreased air quality. Commissioner Richards provided some background information and then expressed concern regarding the location of the one story and two story developments and buffers. Mr. Diaz noted that the San Tropez development had parking along that area and there would be the setback, parking, aisle and parking providing 60-70 feet to the two story units. After concern expressed by Commissioner Whitlock, Mr. Diaz indicated a condition of approval could be placed on the tentative map that property owners adjacent to 4 M WrES PALM DESERT PLAT rOM COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1989 the multiple residential apartment units be made aware that apartments could occur and have that confirmation submitted to staff. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HERB LUNDIN stated that he was present to answer questions. C omissioner Whitlock asked about the plans for the two story portion. Mr. Lundin replied that there may be some limited two story designs within the single family development and with the apartments, they would be able to comply with restrictions and would also have some internal two-story components. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVM or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JIM GLEASON, 9 La Jolla Drive in Silver Sands Racquet Club area, informed commission that he was not representing the homeowners association, but had spoken with 38 people who were in agreement with him. He stated that he was pleased with Commissioner Richards comments on compatibility between low density and high density housing, which was his major concern. He felt the project provided an awkward transition and was not qualitatively in keeping with the general plan. He felt that the multiple unit dwellings should be moved further into the complex and use the frontage road as a buffer. He also felt that one of the two access points was too close to Country Club Drive and the fire station, which would create a traffic hazard situation. He felt that having only one access would alleviate that problem. He felt that more information was needed before approval of the first phase was given, and a precarious situation could be averted with adequate conditions. Mr. Gleason also noted that landscaping maintenance to be provided by the association for Country Club was provided in the conditions of approval, but Portola seemed to have been left out as an oversight. MR. CHUCK FARANOLLA, Board of Director and Homeowners Association for Casablanca, concurred with comments by Mr. Gleason and expressed concern for the second phase of development; he wanted to be assured the apartments would not look into their development. Mr. Diaz noted that the commission has only approved interior two story units in the past. 5 `r MINUIES PALM DESERT PLANNING C1CMLSSICIJ JUNE 6, 1989 rl MR. CLAUDE KLUG, Hoard of Director for Palm Desert Greens, expressed support for the preservation of owner occupied dwellings, but expressed concern for the multiple residential units. He stated that he reserved his right to speak later on the multiple unit development. Ccm issioner Richards requested acreage for the apartment use. Mr. Diaz stated that the single family was 45 acres and density of 3.75 and multiple units were 27.9 acres and 7.9. Mr. Lundin felt that the multiple family development would be an appropriate buffer use for the single family development. He also felt that separate entrances were needed, but they would not be gated. Ccnudssioner Richards felt the position of the apartments was not right and that apartments should be with apartments and single family with single family with a buffer in between, noting that the density of San Tropez was over 20 units per acre, which would be a difference of from 20 units to 8. Chairman Erw od agreed with Ccamissioner Richards. Mr. Folkers commented on conditions with maintenance of landscaping rl by an assessment district and perimeter to be maintained by a hammers association or assessment district. No. 3 of public works --staff had concern with the storm drain and was working with CVWD for a storm drain in Portola and the intent would be for this project to tie-in with the Portola as it is being designed. On item 18 for pad elevations, there was a concern with pads along the south boundary and staff would be reviewing it; no. 19, along Country Club and Portola there are different utility lines--public works' recommendation was that Country Club undergrounding be done in phase 3. The undergrounding along Portola was a problem and it would have to be worked out with So. California Edison. No. 22, under phase 1 all improvements along Portola with the exception of the power lines should be completed, and under phase 2 the road going in should be brought up to tie-in with Country Club and the connection at the traffic signal and all necessary street work be done there. Phase 3- -the entire improvements along Country Club, the undergrounding and complete widening, curb, gutter, and sidewalks would be completed. Mr. Lundin responded to moving the multi-family near San Tropez. He felt it would be better to put the quality single family dwellings along the westerly boundary in preference to near the intersection of Portola and Country Club and the fire station 6 Iwo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNII7 0CM USSION JUNE 6, 1989 .. because the separation of the existing San Tropez and the development was extensive and a fairly quiet. The visual corridor to be captured by those lots would be valuable. Camdssioner Richards disagreed. He felt that the applicant should be able to develop a subdued version of San Tropez, ocopletely walled off and gated. He did not feel that the location of the fire station was a detriment. He felt that a gated ccn unity for the rest of the development would provide isolation. Mr. Lundin asked the audience if they would rather live next to San Tropez or next to the fire station. Mr. Gleason stated that they do live next to the fire station with low density housing and are opposed to living next to high density housing. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Lundin could design the project in the manner suggested by Commissioner Richards, which should not impact the views for the residential units, or consider relocation. Mr. Lundin stated that it could not be relocated and felt the project would provide the buffer from traffic, but could work with a sink level or multi-levels to provide visual benefits. '"" After further discussion, commission felt that another plan should be drawn up and presented at a study session on June 20, with the public hearing continued to July 5, 1989. The applicant concurred. Action: Moved by Co►mmmissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Dawns, continuing TT 24632 to July 5, 1989 and instructing staff to place this item on the study session agenda for June 20, 1989 at 5:30 p.m. in the administration conference roan. Carried 5-0. E. Case Nos. PP 89-6 Amendment 1, C/Z 89-6 - DAVE MANOCKIAN, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-3 and R-1 to O.P. , a 37,663 square foot office complex and negative declaration of environmental impact, north of Alessandro between San Pascual and San Juan. 7 •rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING Q" USSION JUNE 6, 1989 Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and explained the changes that had been made to the previous proposal. He noted that the revision had received unanimous architectural commission approval. Staff recommended approval of the project. Comissioner Richards did not feel that two story buildings on a street like Alessandro was the intent of the Palma Village Plan. Mr. Diaz noted that the zoning of R-3 and O.P. allowed two story buildings. he stated that the ordinance could be amended to preclude two story buildings, but that would be a separate issue. He stated that this project exceeded the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Richards stated that the ordinance outlined the highest uses and intensity, which did not have to be approved. He felt that the proposal was too much building for the area. Commissioner Dowels stated that his interpretation of the north side of Alessandro was parking lots, small buildings, and a buffer against residential uses. He objected to the project's access on residential streets and areas. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the ccnvdssion. r1 M. BERNARD LEUNG stated that the project design was based on the ordinance guidelines, which the project met. He was trying to satisfy the client, the commission, and make it an economically viable project. He asked for constructive feedback. Commissioner Richards stated that his primary concern was the two story and intensity of the project. He felt two stories were inappropriate at this site, but had no problem with the proposed usage. He also suggested that the lines of the building be broken up and single story. After discussion on possible allowance for one story buildings Mr. Manookian suggested a study session. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. E:RIC BALSER, 44-750 San Pascual, stated that he was under the impression that with the Palma Village Plan traffic congestion would be limited and San Pascual and San Juan would 8 MLNU MS PALM DISER T PLANNING CU44ISSICN JUNE 6, 1989 be cul-de-sacced. He felt that any two story use would prevent enjoyment of his property and wanted to ensure privacy. He indicated that the neighborhood was being downgraded and one home next to the racquet ball court had up to 15 cars parked there with a minimum of six. He informed canmission that his neighbor was forced to move for safety reasons because outside her bedroom and bathrocrm windows there would be 10 people out there around a drum keeping warm. He said that right now they were running a body shop. He stated that this wasn't a ccn unity to raise a family in anymore and would like to see San Pascual cul-de-sacced to protect them from the traffic. He also stated that there was spillover from the racquet ball and golf balls would come through the windows, all of which was a detriment. MR. ED YAKEL, 44-851 San Pascual, verified Mr. Balser's convents and stated he was in favor of offices because he was afraid of what else might be put there. He indicated he would be in favor of single story along Alessandro and cul-de-saccing the streets. He felt that San Pascual already has heavy traffic and was the only through street besides San Pablo and Portola. He felt that the rental units were a problem. He indicated that he might be in favor if the driveways were on Alessandro, the buildings r.. single story, and the streets cul-de-sacced. MS. FERN JAOC)BS, 44-801 San Pascual, stated that they get the traffic from Fred Waring and did not have a stop sign. She indicated that if the driveway was on San Pascual, they would like the street cul-de-sacred. MR. RAOUL SANDERS, 44-401 San Pascual, stated that traffic was a problem; he finally got signs to post the speed, but it was not enforced. He told the connission there had been three or four accidents in the 1 1/2 years he had lived there and two cars landed in his front yard--when the police were there, they had to issue several citations because of traffic problems. He felt that the rental units were a problem and stated that the senior center next door had 150 cars there which created heavy congestion; the rental units have 10-15 cars there. Mr. Diaz stated that if it was a single family hone where the 10-15 cars were parking, the violation should be reported. Mr. Sanders felt that a cul-de-sac was a good idea; he liked the building but didn't want two stories. 9 MIIVUMS PALM DESERT PLAMIW COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1989 r/ Commissioner Richards asked about cul-de-saccing San Pascual; Mr. Folkers stated that the city had no plans to cul-de-sac San Pascual and outlined the circulation problems that would be created if it were closed. Mr. Diaz stated that from the city's standpoint, the assessment district for curb and gutters indicated the city's looking at the Palma Village area to continually increase in value and improve, and if there are problems as mentioned, residents should contact code enforcement. Fifteen people in one hone is not allowed. He stated stop signs were installed when traffic warrants were met. Commissioner Downs stated that he lives on the corner of San Pascual and De Anza and his block wall has been knocked down, but cul-de- saccing San Pascual would be bad because traffic would increase on San Pablo and San Gorgonio, which was already backed up. He felt that the traffic speed needed to be enforced and what the residents had stated about the houses having 6-15 cars was true. He informed commission that contacting code was not always the answer because they require a signed complaint and he had proof that people go after the ones signing the ccmplaint. Mr. Diaz stated that he would do score research on this issue. Chairman Erwood stated that a signature was not needed for a code enforcement officer to go by a location and if he see's a violation, he can site them. Mr. Diaz felt that the main problems expressed were the two stories and traffic on residential streets; if the project proposed one story and access onto Alessandro, those problems would be resolved and a study session could be scheduled on June 20. Chairman Erwood didn't feel a study session was needed and objected to the concept of study session to address issues of this nature, even though study sessions were open to the public. Camiissioner Richards stated that the project's economics wouldn't be as good, but there didn't seem to be a drastic cut from the 37,000 square feet. He indicated the cartnission was basically looking for one story with no entrances on the side streets. Mr. Manookian stated that they would consider the one story use and if it didn't make sense, they would appeal to council. He accepted a continuance to June 20, 1989. 10 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CC PT 1SSION JUNE 6, 1989 , Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Cccrmissioner Downs, continuing this matter to June 20, 1989 to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise the plan. Carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Diaz informed ccmmission that the regularly scheduled meeting of July 4, 1989 would be scheduled on July 5, 1989 due to the date being a holiday. X. ORAL 0344JMCATIONS None. xi. 0cmMaI'S Chairman Erwood informed the cc mission that he would be absent from the June 20, 1989 meeting. All other catmission members stated that they could be present. Ccmmissioner Richards stated that he would be absent from the meeting of July 5, 1989. All other members indicated that they could be present. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Chairman Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting to June 20, 1989. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. RAMJN A. DIAZ, Sec et ATTEST: RI61ARD ERWO05 Chairman /tm 11