Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0702 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 2, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE .A. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Jim Richards Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Ray Diaz Phil Drell Kandy Allen Dick Folkers Jeff Winklepleck Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 18, 1991 meeting minutes. err.. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the June 18, 1991 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no items before city council on June 27 directly related to planning commission decisions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP/CUP 91-4 - JOHN CANAVAN, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan/conditional use permit to allow construction of a two story 6876 square foot office project with a maximum MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 of 2200 square feet of medical offices at 73-929 Larrea Street in the R-3 zone. Mr. Winklepleck reviewed the background of the case and indicated that the applicant received approval from the Palm Desert Property Owners Association' s Architectural Committee. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHRIS MCFADDEN, 44-850 Las Palmas Suite A in Palm Desert, submitted photographs to the commission of other two story developments in the area that were similar to the proposal. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1520, approving PP/CUP 91-4, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. B. Case No. RV 91-2 - JAMES ARMSTRONG, Applicant Request for approval to park a recreational vehicle in the front yard area on private property at 72-868 Skyward Way. Mr. Diaz stated that this item was before the commission as a result of the recreational vehicle ordinance that required that the director hold a hearing and if even one letter of opposition was received the matter would be sent to the planning commission for hearing. He noted that there were letters in opposition and letters in favor; staff felt the work Mr. Armstrong did to screen his vehicle on Skyward, with most of the letters in favor being from neighbors on Skyward that were directly affected, the proposal should be approved. Staff indicated that if planning commission denied this request, the city might as well amend the ordinance and eliminate it. He felt that Mr. Armstrong did a good job of screening and recommended that staff be instructed to prepare a resolution of approval. 2 r.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. +wr MR. JIM ARMSTRONG submitted two additional letters and some pictures. He informed commission that he had lived in this location since 1973 and had the motor home parked there since 1978. He said it was never his intent to create or maintain an eyesore. He indicated that he immediately put in lattice work and planted shrubs to screen the lattice-work. He stated that he had since replaced this with a block wall and iron gates with decorative lanterns on top. He installed these improvements before any ordinance was enacted. He noted that in the staff report there was only one objection from neighbors on Skyward and did not feel that the one neighbor objecting could see the coach from her front yard or any yard, but had to walk into the street to be able to see it. He stated that the only other objections were from people who lived as far away as two streets. Mr. Armstrong said that he had letters of approval from all the neighbors most directly effected--those directly across the street. He did not feel it was the intent of the steering committee to include all residents within the 300 foot radius. He felt the intent was to notify residents within 300 feet up and down the street. He felt he complied with the provisions of the ordinance, low but if there was anything lacking, he requested the opportunity to bring the site into compliance. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. JEAN MICHAEL, 72-848 Skyward Way, informed commission that she bought her home in November of 1973 and at that time she told her real estate agent that she did not want to buy a home next to anyone with a motor home and it was specified in the CC&R' s that there were not be any motor homes. She indicated that the provision for no recreational vehicles ran out in 1978 or 1979 and felt that Mr. Armstrong had parked his motor home there before the CC&R' s ran out. She felt that he did a good job of screening, but it could still be seen. She informed commission that she has had trouble selling her home because potential buyers didn't want to locate next to a "used car lot and motor home" . She indicated that she had a potential buyer that was a mortgage broker, but he felt it would depreciate the property down too much and he would not buy unless something was done. taw3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards felt that Mr. Armstrong' s screening should be the model for the statute. He noted that he lives one street away and that on his street there were two properties that had done the same thing and while he sympathized with Ms. Michaels, there might be many reasons why someone might not be able to sell a home. He felt that Mr. Armstrong did an excellent job of being empathetic to his neighbors and felt that the intent of the ordinance was met. Chairperson Whitlock concurred and felt the recreational vehicle was tastefully screened. Commissioner Downs stated that he had no problem with the request and noted that he was a member of the committee and felt this was a model of what they tried to do. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at the next meeting. Carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 91-12 - BOB SIPOVAC, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use .ram permit for an 800 foot expansion of an existing 800 square foot restaurant/deli at 73-540 Highway 111 . Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB SIPOVAC, applicant, stated that he had been in business in this area for a while and indicated he had a customer following from all over Southern California. He indicated that his business was doing well but he would like additional space for customer convenience and a cold storage walk-in facility and service bar. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. 4 to MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1521, approving CUP 91-12, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. PP/CUP 89-3 Amendment - CUSACK RADAKER DEVELOPMENT, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit amendment for a 70, 000 square foot office/restaurant complex on 4.7 acres at the southeast corner of E1 Paseo and Highway 111. Mr. Drell stated that this was a previously approved plan and the proposal had received approval from the architectural commission. He stated that there were two changes from the original project: 1 ) architecture, and 2 ) the site plan. Commission and staff discussed access issues and problems with Caltrans, as well as requiring reciprocal access to the easterly property. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BILL CUSACK, Cusack/Radaker Development, stated that they talked to the adjacent property owners and did not have a problem with an additional condition that at any time those property owners incorporate into the superblock, they could have ingress and egress through the entrance to their project. He felt that would be better for both projects. After further discussion, commission determined that a continuance was in order to allow the applicant to submit revised plans showing how the proposed plan related to the ultimate development of the superblock to include potential for development and access for the remaining parcels to the east, and come back at the next meeting. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 MR. JOHN WALLING, project architect, stated that in regard to the footprint, he felt parking should be in the , rear to hide it and parking demand was generated by who was using the building regardless of where it was located. He felt that even with exposing the building, there was a minor amount showing, which was better than a sea of parking. He also suggested that in order to mitigate the problem with the property to the east, they could condition the project that the access be granted at a future date as deemed necessary to facilitate circulation from the east property. Commissioner Richards asked if the applicant felt it was a positive or negative to have access on Panorama; Mr. Walling felt that from an architectural standpoint it was an advantage. Mr. Cusack did not feel there was a strong impact either way. Commissioner Richards stated that his initial concern with the footprint was due to taking up the corner and the blocking off of the other building and would have preferred to have seen the building backed up, but acknowledged it probably couldn' t be done. Mr. Cusack noted that the property to the south, east and part of the west was residential and he had always felt that commercial uses should be kept as far away as possible from residential. Commissioner Richards felt a continuance to allow the applicant to provide revised plans. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, continuing PP/CUP 89-3 Amendment to July 16, 1991. Carried 4-0. E. Case No. PP 91-5 - URRUTIA ARCHITECTS (FOR GTE) , Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and precise plan of design to allow construction of a 672 square foot telephone switching building on a 1 +/- acre site 1261 feet north of Gerald Ford Drive and 660 feet east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient plans of the report, explained that the proposal had received architectural commission approval and recommended approval. :! 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 Chairperson Whitlock felt more landscaping was needed and opened the public testimony. MR. RICK LOPEZ, project architect from Urrutia Architects, indicated that the architectural commission did review the project and suggested two additional trees on the west side that were not reflected on the plan on display. He noted that there was a problem with blow sand and felt not many trees could withstand the constant wind. He stated that the project would be an unmanned, remote monitored facility with no restroom facilities. He informed commission that he did not have a problem with conditions listed by staff. He stated that in discussion with Edison they would provide power but they would like to bring it on the existing power poles that fronted on Gerald Ford and install an under-build or below the existing cross ties. To go underground would be an extraordinary expense. He indicated that Edison would do this but they wanted a letter from the city to either Urrutia Architects, GTE or directly to Edison to allow them to do this. Commissioner Richards stated that the only way it could be done would be on a conditional basis and the moment the first building went up in the same block, everything would go .► underground. Mr. Diaz indicated that there was a problem with the undergrounding nexus and assessment districts for undergrounding. Staff recommendation was that the lines be undergrounded and the applicant could appeal the condition to city council. Commissioner Downs concurred. Commissioner Richards noted that the same conditions were imposed on private developers and did not know if it was fair in either case. MR. FRANK URRUTIA addressed the commission and informed them that they were planning to underground the lines from the road back to the building and had always planned to do that. The only concern they had was bringing power to the site. He noted there was power out there but they could not use it because it was high voltage. He said there were two ways to bring in power they could use: 1 ) underground from Frank Sinatra; or 2 ) bring it overhead by adding on to the existing high voltage system. He stated that it was very expensive either way in that installing overhead system would be approximately 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 $200, 000. Edison was willing to do that and GTE was willing to pay for that because it was the only way to bring power to the site. He indicated that all they were proposing to do was utilize the existing high voltage lines and add an additional wire to the pole system and once , it got to the ingress/site, it would be undergrounded the approximate 1230 feet to the building. Commissioner Downs asked why they couldn' t do this from the transformer and undergrounded all the way. They would come off the high voltage overhead to the site, then put it underground and transform it there, then why couldn' t they do it all the way from the main pole. Mr. Lopez stated that Edison has 150 KV line running through there and it would have to be run through a substation, not just a transformer, to get it to the area. He noted that Edison has a plan for 1996 to acquire property, approximately three to four acres, and put in a substation that would eventually feed all the proposed development in this area. He indicated that GTE has a mandate from the PUC to provide telephone service now with the intent to go on-line with phone service in January of 1992. Edison proposed to go back onto Portola, which has the requisite 12 KV lines, and bring that up north Portola and westerly on Gerald Ford to the closest utility line and from there take it underground and then take it into the property where they will take it underground and transform it to the 12 KV to use it onsite. He stated that the 150 KV was too high a voltage to transformer down. He indicated that Edison said it would cost $1 million per mile to underground the 150 KV, which they will have to do when the area develops. Commissioner Downs felt that the lines should be undergrounded. Commissioner Richards stated that the planning commission did not have the ability to waive undergrounding; that would have to be done by the city council. Mr. Diaz said that the undergrounding would be required and the applicant could appeal the decision. Mr. Urrutia asked for and received clarified that it was a procedural matter and the condition could be appealed to council. Mr. Urrutia noted that as a member of the architectural review commission they discussed the landscaping and the impact in the future and indicated that it was felt that while they could provide a certain amount of landscaping within the project, because of where it was located and it being eventually being encompassed by future development, that future development ' s landscaping would mitigate it better because of the perimeter walls. He stated that the site MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 slopes rapidly and when entering the site it slopes on a rapid downward slope and the building was down lower. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards stated that he would move for approval with the requirement that the undergrounding be done all the way. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1522, approving PP 91-5, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request by the Coachella Valley Water District to construct three booster stations and an associated 24- inch underground pipeline. Mr. Diaz explained that CVWD was requesting to construct three booster stations and an associated 24-inch underground pipeline. After discussion, commission determined that the three booster stations to be acceptable, subject to them being undergrounded. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the construction of the three booster stations, subject to them being undergrounded. Carried 4-0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Downs commented on the noticing of the 300 foot radius for recreational vehicle use requests. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1991 Commissioner Richards felt that insufficient landscaping was provided in the parking lot area of the Columbia Center. Mr. Diaz stated that it would be reported to the code department. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting to July 16, 1991 . Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 4 e z 14wexo RAM ON A. DIAZ,• S c ary ATTEST: 4-4Z CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 10