Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1205 S i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUES DAY - DEC EMBER BER 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARIM DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE s Commissioner Erwood led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen Dick Folkers Phil Drell �... Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 7 and 21, 1989 meeting minutes. Commissioner Erwood noted that his name needed to be added to the members present on the minutes of November 21, 1989. Commissioner Jonathan informed staff that he did not receive his copy of the minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the November 7, 1989 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-2 (Chairperson Whitlock and Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Moved by Commissioner Dawns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the November 21, 1989 meeting minutes as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz explained that due to the Thanksgiving holiday, there had �.. been no council meeting since the last planning catmu meeting.meetin . f f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCNMISSION DEER 5, 1989 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PM 21557 - Bill Alexander, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension for a parcel map that combines three existing lots into one parcel on the west side of Corporate Way at Lennon Place. This is the first time extension request. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. IT 25373 - HNLEy GFDup, Applicant Request for approval of a 20 lot single family subdivision north of Hovley Lane, 500 feet east of Meadow Lane. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions. Chairperson Whitlock asked if the wood fence would be temporary. Mr. Diaz replied that the six foot wood fence along the interior was temporary. It could be removed at such time as the drainage was installed to delineate the 20 foot drainage easement. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the normal side setback requirements. Mr. Diaz stated that in these developments the side yards are five feet to property line and ten between structures. Calamissioner Jonathan asked if some of the lots were under 8,000 square feet. Mr. Diaz stated that the sizes were smaller because of the easement; he indicated that the 8,000 square foot lot size minimum was what staff had determined should be the normal minimum for single family detached in the planned residential zone. He informed cammLission that the reason for that was because the smallest R-1 zoning the city had at the time of incorporation was R-1 8,000; in this particular case to achieve that on both sides of the street there would be a 20 foot drainage easement where people could not develop and their depth would be less; staff felt having the smaller lot size would balance that. He noted that if the drain was eventually put in and undergrounded, then people could do something. 2 MIN[TIES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMMIISSION DECEMBER 5, 1989 y Commissioner Jonathan asked what alternatives were looked at and asked if there could be a requirement to underground the drainage so there wouldn't be wider lots on the west side. Mr. Diaz stated that the drain would have to be constructed by the city, not by the developer, and there would still be the 20 foot easement--it couldn't be used for a pool or any amenity such as that. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. JOHN ADDICEERS, civil engineer, 4501 E. Sunny Dunes in Palm Springs, informed commission he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if any alternatives had been considered that would result in lots larger than 7,800 square feet on the east side. Mr. Addickers stated that the lot averaged at about 8,000 square feet and the type of have being proposed would work well on the lots. He indicated that the lots were 130 feet deep which would provide an ample backyard. Commissioner Jonathan asked what size homes were envisioned on the east side lots and Mr. Addickers stated that the hones would be the same on both sides, approximately 2,000 square feet. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal; there being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not in favor because of the size of the lots; he had a problem with 8,000 square foot lots and would rather see a minimum of 10,000 square feet. He indicated he understood the need for smaller lots, but felt that area was not high density and did not want the lots getting smaller and smaller with no break up in how the streets were formed--with five foot setbacks there would be cramped houses and he did not like this to be the direction of the city for that area. Commissioner Downs indicated that under normal circumstances he would agree, except in this case the city was taking a 20 foot easement which was resulting in only 200 feet less. He did not feel that was being fair to the developer. Commissioner Jonathan sympathized but wanted to find some other alternative and he felt that whoever bought the property knew that going in and noted there was vacant property on either side that could be incorporated into a larger project. 3 rr.. MINUTES PAIN DESERT PLANNING CICKIISSICN DECEMBER 5, 1989 Commissioner Richards agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. He indicated that while he did not have a strong feeling on this, he didn't feel that the city should have to accommodate developers. He didn't know what the minimum lot size should be, but was willing to go along with Commissioner Jonathan's point of view that 8,000 square feet was stretching it. He felt the real problem was the five acre parcels and indicated this was the best use of the five acre parcel. Chairperson Whitlock did not feel this was the project to penalize because of the 20 foot drainage easement and the lots being 150 feet deep and on a cul-de-sac. She did not feel this particular project should have that restriction invoked upon it. Commissioner Erwood agreed since it was a matter of only a 200 square foot difference. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was valid, but indicated that each person has their own breaking point and if the next project caning along has 7,600 square feet and it's pointed out that it is only a difference of 200 feet, at some point it has to be said that enough is enough--there should be a stopping point and he did not want that trend to continue. He indicated that the challenge of the five acre parcel was great enough and when driving down Hovley there were just rows of houses and straight cul-de-sacs. He felt that residential was appropriate for the area and otherwise felt this was a fine project. He stated that he would like an attempt to be made at doing something else. Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards voted no). Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1399, approving TT 25373, subject to conditions. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards noted no). B. Case No. CUP 89-12 - CJH PAR'ITER.S, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and negative declaration of environmental impact for a 537 square foot office project within an R- 3 (4) zone located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. 4 `ow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COn14ISSION DEER 5, 1989 Mr. Drell noted that the building size was 11,537 square feet. He outlined the salient points of the staff report, noting that the project received preliminary architectural camiission approval, and stated that some petitions had been received from residents and the preschool down the street and one signature fran a Mr. Jack Dayton in support. He reccmmended that the use be recommended for approval to city council after further discussion on the issue of whether Alessandro should be narrow or wide. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the cc mtission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 40-840 Thunderbird Road in Rancho Mirage, architect for the project, stated that they were not interested in narrowing the street and did not understand why the narrowing would be advantageous unless more square footage was desired for the project. He indicated that if the road were narrowed, the developer would have to narrow the whole city block, which he was not interested in doing. Mr. Martin informed ocmmmission that the lot coverage was only 28 percent. He felt that Alessandro seemed to be cleaning up with the addition of the office/commercial use as opposed to residential being built on it. He described the architecture of the building and indicated that the parapet height would vary depending on where the air conditioning units had to be placed on the roof. He stated that they felt an ingress/egress on Santa Ynez seemed to provide a natural traffic flow through the project, but staff dissuaded them from doing that. He indicated that the developer would like to have that but it was not mandatory. Commissioner Richards indicated that he did not have a large problem with what the project was trying to accomplish, but did have a serious problem with the intent of Alessandro. He suggested that having the road narrow and wide might be good for a change and might slow traffic speed. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. MS . JANE JOHNSON, a real estate broker in Palm Desert representing the applicant, stated that before the applicant started on this project, she and her partner canvassed the area and talked to most of the hcmeowners and same apartment owners in the area and showed them pictures taken of completed projects in Palm Desert. She indicated that overall response was good. 5 %w+ o.r, NII NUFES PALM DESERT PLANNING OCM ISSION DBC9ER 5, 1989 She distributed pictures to the commission and wanted them to know that they had done their homework. MR. DENNIS GOEDECYE, 44-875 Deep Canyon in Palm Desert, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he owned a commercial building on the corner of Deep Canyon and Alessandro. He expressed one concern noting that as a condition on his project the street was narrowed at the east end of Alessandro, and felt that since both ends of the street have been developed, the issue of what to do in the middle should be decided. He felt that no parking on Alessandro should be allowed and the extra space for additional landscaping and setbacks would enhance the property value and no parking on the street would give a clean look. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MS. ABBY FLEMMING, 44-836 Santa Ynez in Palm Desert, asked how many driveways there would be, Mr. Drell stated the plan shows one driveway on Alessandro; she asked if there would be a block wall separating her house from the back, Mr. Drell replied yes, on the east and north sides at a height of six feet; Ms. Flemming asked about the height of the building, Mr. Drell replied 16 feet with 18 feet on the corner to screen the roof equipment; she stated that she would prefer an eight foot wall. Commissioner Richards informed her that in terms of space and line- of-sight, an eight foot wall would block out all visibility for views; with a six foot wall she would still have views of the mountains and noted there would be no windows looking into her house. He did not feel it would be in her best interest to build an eight foot block wall. He noted that the businesses would probably operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Ms. Flemming stated that they had been planning to put up a wall that was eight feet; Mr. Drell informed her that the code for single family residential zone was only six feet and Commissioner Richards indicated that Ms. Flemming could plant oleanders because there was a height limit on them of 12 feet. Ms. Flemming stated that her main concern was having no entrance onto Santa Ynez, which staff had confirmed was on Alessandro. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. 6 *r.r %%WO' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING C+CK ILSSION DECE MBE R 5, 1989 Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Jonathan requested clarification on the recommendation from Mr. Folkers for a continuance. Mr. Drell stated that it could take a form of a commission recommendation on the road to city council. Mr. Folkers stated that it was the same dilemma commission was trying to decide and staff did not have the opportunity to present all the information they intended, but had no problem with the conani.ssion's action. Commissioner Richards noted that in most places in the city there was an attempt to create uniformity. He asked what basic safety problem there would be if the streets were irregular in width. Mr. Folkers indicated that the one concern they had, specifically with the Goedecke project where the street was narrow and where the street was 44 feet wide, was that there could be parking on both sides; he stated that one problem was a need for parking in certain areas; the uniformity aspect had advantages and disadvantages--they had been wrestling with what major problems would arise. He stated that within the last two months there was a study done to determine if there was a need for four-way stops, but at this time there was no need to change the traffic control; he noted there was a by-pass to the frontage road at Highway 111. They did not think the varying would be hazardous, but they were trying to come up with a trial plan with more parking taking place on the north side, which did not seem to be happening. The trial indicated that with a different land development taking place, the street width would not necessarily need to be reduced. At the east end and west ends off-street parking was provided and because of the development pattern the street could be narrowed. Commissioner Richards indicated that this dilemma was not a problem and was more inclined to hold down major development when possible on that street because of the residents in the Las Palmas Plan area. Commissioner Richards asked what direction staff was looking for besides the adoption of the resolution. Mr. Drell indicated that the project needed to be conditioned at least adjacent to this development that he narrow it and he felt conformity within each block was important. Commissioner Richards agreed that uniformity should be within each block. Mr. Drell indicated that if it was done for this development, then the city or someone has to take responsibility for doing it for the rest of the block to the east. He also stated that the decision not to narrow the street was not irrevocable. Commissioner Richards asked if it was possible to pass 7 140me NITNUIES PALM! DESERT PLAMING CC R4:[SSICN DECEMBER 5, 1989 the resolution for the development as presented and then discuss the subject of Alessandro at the end of the meeting. Staff replied affirmatively. Commissioner Jonathan asked why there was no Santa Ynez access, since that was preferable to the applicant. Mr. Drell stated that when there was an opportunity to get access onto a commercial street, staff felt more traffic could be kept out of the residential areas. Chairperson Whitlock called for the vote. Notion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1400, recommending to city council approval of CUP 89-12. Carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. CUP 89-14, VAR 89-7 - MICHMM CASTELLI, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and zero front setback variance to permit a 600 square foot expansion of an existing restaurant (Adreino's) by enclosing an outdoor patio with an openable glassed greenhouse structure at 73-098 Highway 111. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. He indicated that the issues were the expansion to the edge of the planter and the expansion of the restaurant floor area without additional parking. He rued that the applicant insisted that he would only serve dinner and had submitted an agreement to lease a parking lot next door to use as valet parking for the evening hours. He added condition no. 9 stating that the starting hour of operation shall not begin before 5:00 p.m. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan indicated a concern that if condition no. 9 were added, what would happen if the applicant left and the next tenant wanted to serve lunch. Mr. Drell stated that they were subject to this condition and would have to demonstrate that they could provide the additional parking at lunch and the conditional use permit would run with the property. Commissioner Richards asked if the owner of the business was the owner of the property and Mr. Drell replied no, but indicated the owner was present. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. 8 Wr.r `4w MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1989 MR. MICHAEL CASTELLI, applicant, stated that during his business hours with the patio open or enclosed, they could not do any more dinners if it were closed. With it open, there was enough parking and if it were closed, he felt he would still have enough parking but the city said he didn't, which was why he got more parking next door. Commissioner Richards noted that one problem was that 50% of all restaurants fail the first year and 20% were left after five years and most restaurants in Palm Desert move around quite a bit. He indicated that it was difficult for the commission to make exceptions in places where someone was doing something right and noted it was a complicated situation. He stated that it was a severe restriction on the property if commission allowed the applicant to commit some funds to enclose this patio and then if the business was sold to the next tenant who might request lunch hours to stay in business. He stated that the decision was difficult because it might start a precedent. He stated that if the expansion were approved the business sold, the next tenant would have to tear out the new improvements and wanted to make sure both the applicant and property owner understood that. Mr. Drell indicated that the next tenant would be restricted to dinner only, or if he wanted to serve lunch, he would have to take out that improvement or somehow propose to the city's satisfaction some alternative to meet the parking. Mr. Castelli informed commission that his restaurant in San Clemente had been there eight years and did not see his Palm Desert location going anywhere since business had been good. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. Commissioner Downs indicated that he would like to hear from the landlord. MR. CHARLIE MILLER informed commission that he had the property next door and felt that Mr. Castelli had done a good job. He indicated that he owned the property in the back which would eventually be parking, so he would have ample roan to build onto the back of his building if he had to. Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Castelli had been a remarkable tenant and very cooperative with the city and his neighbors. MR. JAMES COLES informed commission that his wife owned the property and they recognized the problem with parking and that dinner hours only was conditioned because of the parking and if 9 F. MINUTES ES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DEER 5, 1989 the property changed hands, felt adequate parking could be provided because it was not a walk-in trade area, but a dinner trade area and valet parking was almost a'j A kir19 requirement because of � the type of clientele that had been generated. He noted that all the neighbors were absentee after 5:00 p.m. and felt that this would enhance property on the north side of Highway 111 and the enhanced appearance might motivate other properties to improve. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone else present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal; there being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many tables were included in 600 square feet. Mr. Castelli replied ten tables were in and ten tables out. Chairperson Whitlock felt that the expansion in eliminating the existing awnings would enhance the site and the whole street and felt that it was an extraordinary circumstance and felt that a fine restaurant had been brought into the community and if the owner of the site understood the caveat and the applicant was prepared to make the addition, she felt commission should proceed and allow the applicant the conditional use permit. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was torn because he felt it would enhance the appearance of the corner which was needed, but on the other hand there was an existing restaurant with an awning that might not be legal. Mr. Drell stated that the existing overhead structured awning was legal and would remain; what was illegal was the drapery and that would be removed. Commissioner Jonathan indicated there was a restaurant with 10 to 20 tables with 6 parking spaces plus the street and expansion would add to the parking problem, while on the other hand would improve the appearance. Chairperson Whitlock noted that the applicant had leased the parking lot next door and would provide valet parking. Commissioner Jonathan stated that if it is good food the tables would be filled up and that would mean 20 cars. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a lot of on- street parking spaces available. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wanted to go on record as being concerned and did not want to see a precedent that would allow the increased activity without parking and hoped there would eventually be parking in the rear. He stated that he would move for approval of the findings and added condition no. 9. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PIANNIW-7 O`M-IISSION DECKER 5, 1989 Commissioner Richards stated that he was more concerned with the property to the west and the possibility that Auto Sound could be sold and it could be turned into a restaurant or something else because nothing is permanent. He indicated that commission's decisions were not made lightly. He felt that staff did a good job on the staff report. Cammissioner Richards expressed concern over the parking and asked if it was a lease situation. Mr. Drell replied yes and indicated that the applicant would pay $100 per month until the year 2002 or until the city parking were provided. Commissioner Richards indicated that answered his questions. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she would second the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Cannission Resolution No. 1401, approving CUP 89- 14 and VAR 89-7, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Housing Element Alternative Statement. Mr. Diaz explained that per commission's request the statement that had been added to the housing element was before them. C ninissioner Richards stated that it satisfied to a small extent his concerns. He asked if the chamber of commerce had responded to the housing element. Mr. Drell stated that while the overall reaction was positive, but they declined to give a formal response. Action: No action was needed. IX. ORAL C 44UNICATIONS MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 40-840 Thunderbird Road in Rancho Mirage, asked if the commission would take testimony from the audience when discussing the narrowing and widening of Alessandro. Commissioner Dooms suggested that the item came back to the next meeting under miscellaneous to allow audience participation. Commissioner Richards concurred; he felt that some sort of established policy was needed. 11 NILNUIES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCWESSION f DECEMBER 5, 1989 i Mr. Drell noted that this item would go before the city council on ' January 11, 1990 and the next planning camd.ssion was December 19. 4 Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Martin's opinion on having the street narrow and wide. Mr. Martin replied that this developer probably did not care either way except that the way it was presented to them was that he would have to do the full block and he was noted interested in doing that. Camdssioner Richards did not feel that would be fair. Conmissioner Richards indicated that in Mr. Goedecke's case there was a little give and take involved. Commissioner Richards felt that staff should have something for the next meeting and the property owners on the street should be notified. Commissioner Richards indicated that he liked Mr. Goedecke's comments on the width of the street and no parking on that narrow street and felt that would accomplish some of his goals for Alessandro. He felt that if some of the on-street parking was cut dawn, then the developers would have to provide real space for employees. Mr. Drell stated that it would not necessarily be a public hearing and noted the decision would be made at council, but staff could try to contact as many people as possible. Commissioner Richards indicated he would like a consensus or to get as many people as possible to show up. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff could provide a video. Commissioner Richards felt that public works could have a good look at it and provide pros and cons with some alternatives to choose from. Commissioner Richards noted that staff indicated with the nod of a head that this would be accomplished. X. I'S Commissioner Jonathan noted that he receives his packet late on Friday afternoon and he sometimes tries to get away early, which meant that sometimes he does not get to look at it until Monday. He asked if it would be a hardship to try and get the packets to him a week ahead of time. Mr. Drell stated that if he could tell staff ahead of time when he would really need it, staff would make a concerted effort to get it done early. Staff confirmed that when the commission gets their packets, they are "hot off the press." Mr. Diaz noted that there was always deadlines for reports for the council meetings also, but if commission could tell staff, they would try to accommodate them. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that if he gets the packet on Friday and if there were plans for the weekend then he does not see it until Monday and it is sometimes hard to get 12 r.f r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAN[JIlNG,7 C+C[,NIISSIDN t DECKER 5, 1989 r I hold of the person in charge of the case. Here quested that staff keep that in mind, because he would really appreciate getting it earlier. 1 } k jt Xi. ADJOURNMENT I Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Comiiss1 er Downs, adjourning the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8: p.m. ,a RAMON A. DIAZ, Secret ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 13