Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0806 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 6, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE low I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Richards called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Richards, Vice Chairman Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Kandy Allen Tonya Monroe Jeff Winklepleck IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 16, 1991 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Erwood abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized the August 1 and August 5, 1991 city council meetings regarding Altamira Country Club. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 24984 - SUNLITE DEVELOPMENT, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a first one year time extension for a tentative tract map subdividing 28 acres into 105 lots for single family home sites. r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 B. Case No. PMW 91-06 - DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. , Applicant ,rr Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment on Loma Vista Lane. C. Case No. PMW 91-07 - DR. & MRS. LEVI LEHV, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge lots 15 and 16 into one lot on Fred Waring Drive. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4- 0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. 1987 SA - KFF MANAGEMENT, INC. ( for Arby' s Restaurant) , Applicant Request for approval of an exception to the city' s sign code ( Section 25. 68 .300 ) to allow a roof sign at 72-795 Highway 111, Suite G, in the PC-3 ( S.P. ) zone. Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report, explaining that while roof signs were not approvable by code at this time, there was a code section allowing exceptions. He noted that the applicant was requesting an internally illuminated roof sign which would read "Arby' s" in 24-inch cardinal red letters. He noted that at the July 9 architectural commission meeting, the commission found the sign to be integrated into the architecture and recommended approval to the planning commission subject to the cardinal red color being changed to a rust or burgundy color. He indicated that the most recent roof sign approved on that building was for Penguins, which was black and flood lit. Staff felt that in order to remain consistent, an internally illuminated sign should not be approved. Staff felt the roof sign for Arby' s should be back lit and rust in color and the roof sign and wall sign should be the same color. He indicated that staff was not recommending the flood lighting 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 because of the dark sky ordinance. Staff recommended approval subject to the sign being back lit and rust in color. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HOWARD LEVIN, KFF Management ' s Construction Coordinator, informed commission that they wanted the cardinal red because it was a trademark color, but understood the city' s request to tone the color down. He indicated that they did not use their maximum allowable square footage in consideration of the city allowing them to go above the roof line. He noted that Penguin' s was a dark sign and not illuminated, but they have twice as many letters on both sides and twice the visibility. He stated that he would not argue the illuminated letters, noting that McDonald' s has illuminated letters, but indicated that he would much rather have the burgundy shade rather than rust. He said he did not see any rust signs, but several burgundy and red signs ( i.e. Columbia Savings, Tony Roma' s, Lucky' s, and Thrifty' s ) . He indicated that he just wanted their best shot at retaining their identity. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant had a sample of the burgundy color he was requesting. Mr. Levin did and "M showed the commission a couple of sample boards. Vice Chairman Richards asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. After discussion about the parking situation and the request, commission determined that a back lit sign in the GSP 230-133 Burgundy color would be acceptable and suggested that Mr. Levin work in a cooperative effort with the neighboring tenants and their landlord to possibly improve the parking and access situation for that center. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1528, 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 approving 1987 SA, subject to the sign being backlit and GSP 230-133 Burgundy in color. Carried 4-0. B. Case No. PM 27065 - WILLIAMSON AND SCHMID, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map of an existing 20 acre parcel into 11 parcels and street dedication for development of an approved precise plan. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and noted that a letter and petition of opposition had been received. He stated that staff would be meeting with Toys R Us representatives to look at their landscaping. Staff suggested that the following condition of approval be added to the parcel map under department of community development as no. 6, "The eight foot wall along the east property line identified in City Council Resolution No. 91-5 shall be constructed prior to the overall grading of the site; only that grading necessary for the construction of that wall shall occur. " He stated that staff wanted the wall to go up first for dust protection. He stated that wall was to be six feet in height rather than eight feet. Staff did not recommend that the wall be raised to eight feet along Fred Waring. He also indicated that condition no. 7 should be added that, "Landscaping and construction of landscaping on the property owners side of the wall be maintained by the property owner and/or his successors and be recorded along with the parcel map" ; and no. 8, "That all gates and automatic gates referenced in previous approvals shall be maintained by the development. " Staff felt that these additional conditions were necessary in order to meet the required findings that the parcel map was consistent and could be developed in a manner consistent with the city' s general plan findings. Staff recommended approval subject to the additional conditions. Upon questioning by Commissioner Downs, Mr. Diaz confirmed that the buildings would remain the same architecturally throughout as approved by the council . He indicated that the color, architecture and heights would be as approved previously. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that if there were a new tenant (property owner) the original conditions would continue to run. Mr. Diaz confirmed that these conditions would have to be recorded and indicated that it would be added as condition no. 9, "All conditions of this 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 parcel map shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder for each parcel . " rn. Vice Chairman Richards questioned the maintenance of the landscaping on the other side of the eastern wall . Mr. Diaz indicated that the wall was moved in from the property line and so six feet of landscaping owned by Downey Savings and Loan was on the other side and they should maintain that landscaping. Vice Chairman Richards did not feel that was acceptable and felt other solutions should be explored. He felt that access to individual properties on a regular basis in perpetuity was not something that could realistically done. He noted that the intent was to create a larger buffer when the proposal came in, and had never seen a condition approved on property that was privately owned where a maintenance in perpetuity was recorded as a condition of approval . He indicated that it was more understandable on a golf course that had no walls or vague lot lines, or on another side of a wall where there was a public thoroughfare and was concerned with potential problems with a gardener employed by Downey Savings and Loan having to get into someone ' s yard and maintain the landscaping for six feet only. Mr. Diaz did not feel that access to that area would be difficult and could be done, but to require the property owner to maintain the landscaping that was a result of a buffer because of the activity of Downey Savings and Loan necessitating the buffer r..r was not fair. If the applicant could show that a property owner refused access, then the applicant would not be required to maintain that particular property. Mr. Diaz clarified that the trees were to block noise and shrubs to break up the look of the wall, so the residents would not be looking at a solid eight foot high wall . Commissioner Richards asked how many property owners would be effected. Staff replied six. Vice Chairman Richards asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ED RITTER, Downey Savings & Loan, stated that their intent was to provide a good environment for the property owners behind the center. He felt it was unreasonable for them to hire someone to maintain those properties because of timeliness and convenience to the property owners and would not object to them using the property as they wish and would give them access in perpetuity. 5 MOW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 Mr. Ritter requested the use of a temporary chain link fence covered with plastic to use in the interim of the W40 wall being constructed and having the wall completed in the latter phase of the development. Mr. Diaz felt that the wall should be completed first to lessen the impact on the residents as agreed to when the project was approved. Vice Chairman Richards agreed that the wall next to the residents should be constructed first to mitigate dust and noise. He felt that timing on the other portions of the wall could be worked out, but not the section next to the residences. Commissioner Downs concurred. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MRS . BEVERLY VORWALLER, 72-445 Cholla, noted that only four properties were affected. She felt that DSL should install the auxiliary gate and maintain the landscaping on the cul-de-sac. Vice Chairman Richards indicated that the property owners would have no control over when the maintenance staff came into their yards to maintain the landscaping and suggested consideration that if they were given the six feet of property and installation of the landscaping and irrigation, the residences should look at that as not a bad deal . MRS . VORWALLER informed commission that she was not one of the residents with that option, but did not know of a homeowner that would object to that. She said that in the conditions it said that the landscaping would be installed, but was not clear on the maintenance issue. Vice Chairman Richards stated that a condition could be added because the city has strict regulations about maintenance of landscaping. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the conditions of approval would be recorded against each parcel and for maintenance by DSL, someone would have to get into the backyards of these private homes. Mr. Diaz indicated that if he was one of the homeowners he would want to maintain the property himself. He would not want a double wall situation and would want to take that additional six feet and put his wall up to there, otherwise 6 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 it would probably end up in a similar situation as Rancho Grande with a walk-through, and residents would not have control of it. He felt it would be better to have it built and hooked onto each homeowners irrigation system and have the applicant give an easement to use it and this would eliminate people walking through there. MRS . VORWALLER felt that was a good solution for the homeowners of those four lots, but was concerned with the landscaping for the whole project. Staff and commission assured her that it would not be a problem. Vice Chairman Richards clarified that this process was more of a financial/mechanical process for the lender to make a loan. He indicated that the common area was included and bound by the conditions of approval . MRS. VORWALLER felt the wording successors and assigns should be added to the maintenance condition. Commissioner Downs clarified that Mr. Diaz amended the department of community development conditions and added in perpetuity to the CC&R' s for the whole piece of land and the next owner of the property would have to comply with the CC&R' s. Vice Chairman Richards reiterated that the recommendation was that the applicant put up the wall, provide the landscaping, hook up to the property owners irrigation system, and provide an easement or abandon it. He suggested to the applicant that they abandon the property, otherwise they would have to continue to pay taxes on the property on a commercial basis. Commissioner Downs suggested Mr. Ritter take that suggestion back to DSL. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the commission would give the applicant the choice to either give the land to the homeowners of the four parcels, or grant them an easement in perpetuity. The maintenance would be the responsibility of the homeowner either way. Mr. Diaz stated that he wanted the applicant to work this out with the homeowners, because if they want to maintain the landscaping and hook up to the fence, that should be worked out ahead of time. They would provide landscaping and hook up to their irrigation systems so that the property owners would have control over the irrigation. He indicated that 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 this was not new, citing the Lucky' s center at Monterey as an example. Vice Chairman Richards stated that he wanted it kept clean and simple with one way for everyone with the applicant installing the wall, providing landscaping, the irrigation system and then abandon it or provide an easement. MR. DON FAULKNER, 72-435 Cactus Drive, stated that he was one of the homeowners that border the development, and felt that if they installed the wall and provided the landscaping, it would be great if it attached to their irrigation system. He asked if they could have that land legally deeded to their property. Commission clarified that Mr. Ritter would have to discuss that with DSL. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would get the use of the property either way. If there was a side fence, the property owner would have the opportunity of tearing down that side fence and expanding the side yard six feet and would be hooked into his sprinkler system. It would be DSL ' s option as to whether there would just be an easement or if they would give the property owners the land. Vice Chairman Richards closed the public testimony. Mr. Diaz summarized the amendments as follows: 1 ) the eight foot wall would go up first adjacent to the properties being resided in and that the other schedule of the fence be left up to the approval of the director of community development; and 2 ) The applicant would develop the landscaping, place it in, work arrangements out with the property owners to hook into their irrigation system, and have that landscaping approved, then deed over through lot line adjustment or grant an easement in perpetuity to allow the property owners use of the additional six feet, at the developers option. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1529, approving PM 27065, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 C. Case No. PP 90-13 - MERVYN' S, Applicant Request for approval of revisions to conditions established at the time of approval of a precise plan for the (DSL ) Waring Plaza retail center on the east side of Highway 111 between Fred Waring Drive and Park View Drive. Mr. Diaz stated that the request was revision of two conditions to change the delivery hours from 6: 00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Staff was not prepared to recommend approval of that and felt the deliveries should remain limited to 6: 00 a.m. to 10: 00 p.m. He understood there were some scheduling problems, but felt it could be worked out. As far as condition no. 17, the overnight parking of trucks or trailers, that condition was placed when Albertson' s was being proposed and when Albertson' s left, the condition was not removed. He noted that the refrigeration units were the cause of concern and recommended that the condition be changed to read that overnight parking of trucks or trailers with refrigeration units not be permitted within 500 feet of residences or any alley. If complaints were received, it would be back for further modification. r.. Commissioner Downs stated that he would like it modified that no overnight parking of vehicles that would be running at any length of time be allowed; either refrigeration or just letting the diesel trucks run. Commissioner Erwood noted that this whole issue was to mitigate noise for the residents. Commissioner Downs indicated that some of the truck drivers would leave the heat or air conditioning on all night; any kind of engine running at all or noise factors should be prohibited. Mr. Diaz indicated that condition 17 could be amended that deliveries and pickups of any trailers be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and delivery trucks be turned off. Commission concurred. Vice Chairman Richards asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. IGNACIO GOMEZ, Mervyn' s Real Estate, informed commission that the request for extended delivery hours was because their distribution center in Ontario starts deliveries at 10:00 p.m. and ends at 6:00 a.m. After pick ups and drop offs at the distribution center, the 9 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 individual stores receive their deliveries in one of these trailers, and that process takes up the amount of aw time allotted for deliveries. He felt that having the eight foot high wall and not having unloading nor people at night would mitigate the concerns and allow them the longer hours. He noted that the loading dock faces a public street and the property across the way was vacant. He demonstrated the location of the loading dock on the wall map. Commissioner Erwood stated that a heavily loaded 18 wheelers were noisy. They have air breaks and at midnight that noise would wake someone up. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he would not deny the applicant the right to come before the commission with the request, but was very opposed. He stated that a lot of time was spent with staff, the residents, and the developer working this agreement out with the residents ' concerns. Unless the applicant could tell commission that there was new technology for a super quiet truck that would not make any noise, the noise mitigation could not be met. He felt that if Mervyn' s wanted to come to Palm Desert, they would make their deliveries by 10: 00 p.m. MR. GOMEZ informed commission that he would abide by commission' s decision of 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Downs stated that he would like to see Mervyn' s in Palm Desert, but not from 10:00 p.m. to 6 : 00 a.m. Vice Chairman Richards o ep ned the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MRS . BEVERLY VORWALLER asked why they received the notice to change these conditions tonight, but the last plan they saw was on December 13, 1990, which was a different plan. Mr. Diaz explained that the denial of the grocery store and ordinance amendments would not result in new notifications going out. He noted that there was a hearing on December 13, 1991 and at that meeting was the proposal with the grocery store site. Staff and the applicant were told to do something creative and that went on to January 10. 10 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 MRS . VORWALLER stated that it was not actually continued at the December meeting. +r Mr. Diaz replied that it came back to the council on January 10 after the meeting where everything was worked out and was continued again to February. The transformation of the center, the buildings, the corners at both Park View and Fred Waring having deeper depth and artistic focal points. He was looking into the record to see exactly what happened because there was a motion to continue on December 13 that was not seconded, but everything was continued to January 10. He assured Mrs. Vorwaller that there was no intent to sneak anything through. He reiterated that Albertson' s with the refrigeration trucks and the noise from the markets wasn' t something the commission or council wanted see in that location. Mervyn' s with their hours of operation was considered suitable and that was why the whole regional commercial zone was amended deleting supermarkets from that location before this proceeded. MRS. VORWALLER thanked Mr. Diaz for his comments, but indicated that if the neighborhood had known that the plans would be changed, they would have been involved with it. She indicated that at the December 13 meeting the minutes said that it was never moved to continue to January 10. She said their troops would have been at the meeting if they had known. Mr. Diaz noted that some residents were present at the January 10 meeting. MRS. VORWALLER indicated that was Mr. and Mrs. Evers and Mr. and Mrs. Sanders, were there because they were still concerned about the cul-de-saccing issue. She stated that she appreciated the comments that had been made during this meeting. MR. GORDON ATCHISON, Joshua Road resident, had questions about the wall . Mr. Diaz clarified that there would be a complete wall; the issue was a matter of the timing of that wall . Commission instructed the applicant that adjacent to the residences the wall would go up first; the rest of the wall would have to be scheduled as approved by the director of community development 11 Inv MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 and the applicant and possibly some other type of dust, mitigation wall would be looked at. Vice Chairman Richards stated that they were trying to be practical . He felt the compromises on the development were strong by both the applicant and the residents, and felt that a concession could be made so that the applicant would have the economic benefit of not having to put up a huge wall around the whole project before they have any other tenants, as long as the wall by the four properties discussed earlier was completed first. He noted that the original conditions were very specific and those had not changed. He stated that the only change was the elimination of the Albertson' s which would have been approximately 30 deliveries per day, versus the one delivery per day to Mervyn' s. MR. DAN DRESSER, 43-900 Joshua Road, indicated on the map where he lives and asked about the timing of the wall in that location. Vice Chairman Richards informed him that his property was not one of the most impacted ones and there was no pad site there. MR. DRESSER noted that there had been a skip loader parked in that vacant lot and was concerned about construction traffic. Mr. Gaugush stated that public works department would be requiring all the normal sand and dust mitigation through the grading process and felt there was a certain level of comfort that would be provided. MR. DRESSER stated that the problems had occurred when Caltrans used the site. Mr. Gaugush assured Mr. Dresser that it would be a different situation with the actual development of the property. Vice Chairman Richards told Mr. Dresser that if there were problems he could give Mr. Gaugush a call . MR. SHELDON VORWALLER, 72-445 Cholla Drive, asked if the city allowed construction traffic on residential roads. Mr. Gaugush stated that typically there were restrictions as to access to a site for construction purposes. If there was 12 MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 only one access to a site and it was residential, it would have to be used. MR. VORWALLER noted that there were four streets leading to this property. All of Fred Waring, all of Highway 111 and Park View. He asked if they could be restricted to using those roads. Mr. Gaugush indicated that there had been a meeting that afternoon with the developer and that issue was discussed briefly that the access for construction traffic be off of Fred Waring Drive. MR. VORWALLER indicated that Joshua Road would be cul- de-sacced and asked if staff knew what phase that would be done in. Mr. Gaugush stated that he couldn' t give specifics on that, but that was part of the overall site improvements. MR. RITTER, Downey Savings and Loan, indicated that they would be requiring the construction traffic to use Fred Waring Drive and the cul-de-saccing would be done with the last of the center. Commissioner Downs asked if there was any reason the fence could not be installed like on San Marino or blocked with barricades. Mr. Gaugush stated that there were concerns of isolating the residents on Joshua Road because of storm drain construction and other construction activity in the area that could be taking place at the same time. He indicated they wanted to specifically schedule the actual closure to prevent that possibility. Vice Chairman Richards closed the public testimony and asked for comments. MR. GOMEZ withdrew his request for extended hours as part of condition no. 13 . Mr. Diaz clarified that amendment to condition no. 13 would be that no deliveries would be made between 10:00 p.m. and 6: 00 a.m. and the trailers/trucks would be shut off; and condition no. 17 that trailers would be allowed to be parked there, but with no refrigeration units running. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the findings. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1530, amending Conditions 13 and 17 ( 1 ) of Case No. PP 90-13. Carried 4-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT woo Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting to August 20, 199 Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8 :30 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, gecotary ATT JIM RIC DS, Vice Chairman /tm 14