Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1203 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 3, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE "v I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: Bob Spiegel Staff Present: Ray Diaz Phil Drell Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe Dick Folkers IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 19, 1991 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the November 19, 1991 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Chairperson Whitlock noted there was no council meeting since the last planning commission meeting due to the Thanksgiving Day holiday. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. CUP 89-07 - OLIPHANT, LIZZA & ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a first one year time extension for a 16, 892 square foot office building located north of Fred Waring Drive between Acacia and Monterey Avenue. r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment - FELIDAZ, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an approved precise plan and conditional use permit reducing the size of the parking lot for a 35, 000 square foot commercial center on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Highway 111 and San Gorgonio Way. Mr. Diaz noted that the issue before the commission was the design of the project and the appropriateness of that design. He said that the issue of eminent domain and justification thereof were issues that would be before other bodies (city council ) , and was similar to the street fair issue. Mr. Drell indicated that commission had requested direction from the city council on the issue and their possible course of action relative to the ownership of the property, which was why the issue had been continued by the planning commission. He explained that what occurred before the Parking Authority (city council ) relative to possible ownership of this parcel was whether or not they should reconfirm an acquisition development agreement with Felidaz, Inc. He explained that agreement set out the terms and relationship between Felidaz and the parking authority if the parking authority participated in developing a parking lot and assisting in the acquisition of the parcel. At that meeting the parking authority voted to reconfirm that agreement, in essence directing redevelopment agency staff to continue to pursue the steps toward acquisition of the parcel . He indicated this would require further proceedings and did not commit them to acquire any property, but they did commit staff to spend time toward the necessary steps that could lead to acquisition of the parcel . Mr. Drell indicated that in presenting the issue to them, staff made it clear that it would not be a voluntary program on the part of Ms. Guiberson. The options available 2 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 to the parking authority were that they would carry through to the logical conclusion their action, or stop the process low to not continue to waste anyone' s time. On that information the parking authority voted 4-1 to direct staff to pursue the necessary legal steps leading to possible acquisition by the parking authority. Mr. Drell stated that planning commission' s role was to make a recommendation based on the merits of the amendment. Mr. Drell compared the original plan to the amendment. He described some of the changes from the original submittal : 1 ) the building on the corner was originally two story and it was reduced to a one story building; 2 ) the total height of the buildings were reduced from 30 feet allowed in the C-1 zone to 25 feet permitted in the professional office zone; 3 ) the planning commission recommended that the use be restricted to office use and those elevations submitted were the corrected elevations that complied with the height conditions the planning commission placed on the project. He stated that when the plan went to the city council, they reaffirmed the planning commission's recommendation relative to the one story on the corner and the height of the project transition to office to adhere to the office development standards, but they did not affirm the planning commission' s restriction limiting the uses to office. They said they wanted the project built to the office standards relative to setbacks and architecture, but they would allow general commercial uses in the building. That was what was approved at city council. Mr. Drell indicated that the site plan was the same and the elevations were the same, but the change was the section cut out that would allow Ms. Guiberson' s to remain in her home. Mr. Drell stated that planning commission' s recommendation to city council should be based on whether they felt the amendment was acceptable to approve it, with any appropriate conditions; otherwise they could deny the amendment. He noted that they could restate their original objection to retail on the site and condition the amendment to be only office. Chairperson Whitlock asked what was planned for separating the home from the parking lot. Mr. Drell replied that there would be a six foot block wall and in most cases perimeter landscaping. Chairperson Whitlock asked if a condition had been placed for appropriate landscaping of that wall; Mr. Drell said no, but if commission wanted a condition it could be added. Chairperson Whitlock clarified that the only thing called out in the conditions was the six foot block wall; Mr. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 Drell answered yes, and also the landscaping shown on the plan. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking requirement based on the new use permitted by council was exceeded even with the cut out area. Mr. Drell replied yes and explained that the project was initially submitted assuming commercial use and additional space was provided to make it easier for the approval of future restaurant uses; he indicated that the additional parking was what was lost. Mr. Drell clarified that the parking spaces provided met the minimum requirement, not including restaurant use, which would have to go through the same procedure when going into a retail center. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. GARY LYONS, stated that he and his wife were the applicants requesting the amended parking facility plan and were present to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. RUTH GUIBERSON, 44-875 San Antonio Circle in Palm Desert. She noted that so many of the planning commissioners have numerous things before them each day and felt it was possible that they had not seen the property that she and her mother own. She presented a poster containing photographs of her property and the extended area that the applicant wanted to use in Plan B for a parking lot. She said that the front of her property was pleasant, but the integrity was the complete Lot 137, which was .44 acres. She did not think it would have the same feeling if it were chopped in two. She said that she was looking for empathy in this instance and if they had lived in such a dwelling for 22 years and made house payments and hoped to retire there. She said that she had a sprinkler system installed about seven or eight years ago and planted an orchard, but due to health circumstances was not able to care for the orchard and it died and she had subsequent illnesses since then. She said that she was looking forward to planting an orchard of navel oranges and indicated that her daughter in Michigan recently had a daughter in March and she was craving navel oranges and so that was what Ms. Guiberson 4 MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 wanted to plant so that she would always have them. She felt that the focus of the property when pulling in the low driveway was a nice area which would ultimately become her orchard and to the side of the property she might have flowers or a rose garden. She said she had not decided yet and had been busy. She indicated that her mother works 14 hours a day and she herself when well had two jobs, one with Riverside County Mental Health for 40 to 50 hours a week, and also had a ballet school . She noted that she was a single mother since her daughter was ten years old and had these two jobs to maintain a living for her daughter and herself. She informed commission that she was sentimental about the home because of her daughter and her play house was on the grounds. She said that there were a lot of cats living there and she had made houses for them out of boxes and fed them twice a day. Ms. Guiberson said that when the houses were torn down they left their cats behind and she was taking care of them. She also indicated that she and her daughter always had cats. She informed commission that she had lived in a lot of solitude for the past year and a half due to pneumonia and had a relapse, but attended a meeting last May anyway. She indicated that she came to city hall the second week of May to find out what was going on and had to run around to find another attorney and stated that she had to spend an extra year in bed because of this. She said that she was telling the commission about this so that they would know just how much her home meant to her and it was her entire home, Lot 137 Las Palmas Village and she felt that under the laws pertaining to taking citizens' land or home that this was a commercial venture and while she had nothing against commercial ventures, money did not take the place of heart. She asked the commission if they all had homes and suggested that a lot of their heart went into their homes and asked if they had plans for when they retired for what they would do with that home. She said that she and her mother were fortunate at the time they purchased the home in finding it at that location. She indicated that they had no idea that this would become a commercial area and people would want that lot for a parking lot and stated that they both worked hard and were looking forward to retiring in the home and there was no legitimate legal or civil law that would permit the city to take that part of their property. She noted that the city was not going to build a hospital, school, library 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 or something that would be of a non-profit benefit to the entire community. She noted that Dr. Lyons was planning to build a commercial development and she understood that he owned the property where the First Bank was located and had a 99 year lease on that and assumed that the Felidaz Corporation would lease his land for 99 years and would be passed on to his descendants and Felidaz Corporation would profit from businesses and restaurants. She stated that the city would receive extra revenue from taxes. She informed commission that at the February council meeting she and her mother were granted the right to remain in their property through perpetuity. She said that several members of the city council at that time said that they knew how they would feel if someone was trying to take their home. She indicated that they were very kind, gracious and understanding. She stated that she appreciated the commission' s attentiveness and said that the issue probably wasn't as important to the commission as it was to her because it wasn' t their home. Chairperson Whitlock thanked Ms. Guiberson for her testimony and indicated that they understood how she felt about her property. Ms. Guiberson thanked Chairperson Whitlock for her comments and stated that she also appreciated reading the minutes and the comments about she and her mother from the September 17 meeting. Commissioner Richards requested that Ms. Guiberson not repeat any information they had already heard. He did not feel she was helping her case by repeating information. Ms. Guiberson stated that she did not feel she had mentioned to the extent she just did the comments regarding working. She said that she also wanted to bring up the notice of August 23, 1991 and felt it was deceptive and indicated that one would never know what it meant unless they worked for city hall . Commissioner Downs noted that this was information already given to the commission in her testimony. Ms. Guiberson said that she also wanted to give copies of the notices to the commission. She said that the November 5 notice was misleading for the same reason and 6 .■r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 the meeting of November 14 was even brought up by Mayor Kelly as being terribly misleading and appeared as though "' the motion had already been passed. She also indicated that Commissioner Richards had commented that she was running on during the last meeting and she agreed and felt the point was well taken, but noted that he also agreed the notices were very deceiving. She said that the City of Palm Desert appeared to be aiding and abetting a private citizen and were overlooking her legal and civil rights. She gave copies of the notices to the recording secretary for the record and thanked the commission. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Richards noted that Ms. Guiberson had on several occasions indicated that she had employed an attorney. He felt that her problem with the City of Palm Desert was not necessarily a planning issue, but a legal issue. He suggested that if Ms. Guiberson had employed an attorney, the attorney should address the commission when he was needed. He said that this commission was the planning commission and in the prologue the commission was instructed to decide upon the planning issue, not whether the lot should be taken. He recommended that when she goes before the city council, who ""' would make that decision, he suggested that she get her attorney in front of the microphone because he did not feel she was helping herself. He said that this was a legal question and in his opinion did not feel she was helping herself by discussing things that had already been discussed in the past. Addressing the specific project itself, Commissioner Richards stated that he had never liked the project and still did not like it. He did not like the use of two story and felt that the thought of a restaurant or commercial activity on Monterey in general between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive was not appropriate. He did not feel any of the modifications that had taken place would satisfy him and an office professional use would be more suitable. He felt that was proper planning and when looking at the short stretch of road where people were coming across the intersection at Highway 111 heading north traffic speeds up and goes from three to four lanes and narrows to two. He indicated that good planning should not allow anything but offices and had not changed his mind. 7 ... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 Commissioner Jonathan stated that he shared some of those concerns and recalled the history and the difficulty of developing that parcel and the problem of blight in that area. He felt that having vacant land there was an improvement compared to what was there before. Looking at the drawings and the possibilities, he felt that the proposal was along the right lines and would be an improvement from the vacant property and would be the next step. He indicated that the retail use was something that he could live with because of the mitigations. The building was two story but it was reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet and one story on the end. He felt it was reasonable given the difficulty of the property and felt that compromises had been made on the part of the applicant. He noted that with the council direction, the specific issue before them was a change in the parking lot and from information given by staff, the change in the parking lot would not detrimentally affect this project or detrimentally impact the traffic flow or in any other way detrimentally affect the project. The change in the parking configuration and the reduction was acceptable to him and the recommendation he would make was to accept staff' s findings. Chairperson Whitlock concurred with Commissioner Jonathan in that her main concern was the issue of Ms. Guiberson and her lot issue, which would be decided by council. She said that she would like to see project as professional office use only. Commissioner Richards noted that years ago when they looked at Monterey this issue was discussed. He indicated that approved in that area was the Town Center, the two shopping centers to the west, the 30-40 acres sitting vacant, ten acres on E1 Paseo sitting vacant, and the new street fair. He said there was a committee that determined that Monterey was suitable for office professional use and felt people were driving at a rapid rate of speed and there was not a lot of room to stop and look around. The residents in the Las Palmas section were told that they were bringing to them a plan that would preserve to the utmost the quality of life now being enjoyed there, but were concerned that there had been no development in 35 years on some lots. Therefore recommendation were made and they implemented the senior citizen housing plan, said they would isolate them in a square and be sensitive to what was put on the border and would use a buffer. Commissioner Richards did not feel a restaurant or retail use was a buffer. He felt it had been shown that in 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 many cases office professional could be an adequate buffer. He stated that when retail was allowed, the city did not know what would go in that location. It could be activities at night or weekends. He had not seen anything in the plan that would change his mind. Chairperson Whitlock noted that if the commission concurs with the amended plan, she would like to place some landscaping conditions to landscape the six foot block wall . She said that she would like to see a landscape plan that would buffer the residents from the parking lot or have some assurances about a landscape plan to protect them. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and indicated that he was not persuaded against a retail use because this parcel was unique and looking at its place in the community and looking at the intersection of Highway 111 and Monterey, there was a bank on one corner, a gas station on another, a restaurant, another bank and a couple of restaurants and the chamber on the other corner and directly across from this parcel was a million square feet of retail and he felt retail use was different in that location than further north on Monterey. He also indicated that he was not sure he would allow a restaurant in this location and it would have to come before the commission requesting a conditional use permit and if allowed it could have limitations placed on it including night use and parking usage. Commissioner Richards stated that the problem was if retail was allowed at all, that category once placed upon it allows various uses of retail to come before them and when talking about retail, he felt it implied a greater use than office professional and implied utilization of those facilities in evening hours and more for delivery purposes. He indicated that the intent with the Las Palmas plan was to create a buffer and provide a greenbelt. Mr. Drell stated that this was the area with the greenbelt and indicated that the greenbelt was there in the plan along San Antonio and provided a setback equivalent to a front yard of a house and was approximately 28 feet from the curb and between the wall and the curve line of the road it averaged a minimum of 26 feet from the corner to 40 or 50 feet and that was what the specific plan recommended as a greenbelt. Mr. Diaz noted that there was another greenbelt area along Alessandro that had been planned to be utilized. Mr. Drell said that the intent 9 .... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 of the plan was what was provided on the plan and indicated that it was the depth of a front yard. Commissioner Downs recommended approval with a condition for office use only. Commissioner Richards asked what Chairperson Whitlock had in mind for landscaping. He suggested that the developer and property owner work something out. Chairperson Whitlock said that she was looking for landscaping to cover the six foot block wall on both sides. Mr. Diaz said that a condition could be placed that it should be worked out and if an agreement could not be reached, then the plan would be submitted to the architectural commission and would come to planning commission as an informational item. Mr. Drell noted that if the property was not taken the plan could not be implemented. Mr. Diaz suggested splitting the issues of 1 ) the design of the plan, and 2) the use and voting on them separately. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he was in favor of the project, but was opposed to limiting the use to office only. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving by minute motion a condition requiring professional office use only. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commission Richards, approving the findings. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1547, recommending approval of PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment to city council, subject to the conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. 10 �r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 VIII. MISCELLANEOUS lava A. Continued Case No. RV 91-4 - KENNETH W. WATERS, Applicant Request for approval to park a recreational vehicle in the front yard area on private property at 74-305 Covered Wagon Trail. It was noted that this was the resolution that commission instructed staff to prepare for adoption at this meeting. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1548, denying RV 91-4. Carried 4-0. B. Continued Case No. TT 24287 - CURT DUNHAM, Applicant Request for approval to allow two story units within an approved 37 lot single family subdivision located east of Deep Canyon Road, north of Fred Waring Drive, and more particularly described as APN 624-160-007. Mr. Diaz explained that this matter was continued to allow the commission to receive more information on the design of the homes and the view from the street and for the applicant to obtain letters from the adjoining property owners stating that they had no objection to the two story units. He noted the plans on the wall showed no two story units along Deep Canyon and another showing the units planned for the interior streets. Mr. Diaz informed commission that staff was preparing an ordinance amendment to the PR zone for commission' s review that would once and for all establish within the zoning ordinance specific criteria for two story homes relative to setbacks and ground coverage. He said these two story homes meet the criteria established in other cases and the proposed ordinance. In terms of the letters from adjoining property owners, the applicant was in the process 11 vamp MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 of acquiring that letter. Mr. Diaz recommended approval of the two story units subject to staff receiving those letters ,r and the plan meeting the proposed criteria. It was moved by Commissioner Downs and seconded by Commission Jonathan to approve the two story units. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to speak to the motion. Commissioner Richards indicated that with the plans provided he had a better idea of what was being planned. He said that he was concerned about the two story unit windows looking down onto the single story units. He stated that if the units were really going to be done as shown, he didn' t really have a problem other than the concern with the windows. Mr. Diaz indicated that they could require the applicant to submit to the city a signed letter or form from the single story property owners that stating they are aware that a two story home would be built next to them and the letter would be kept in the file. Commissioner Downs also noted that this could be placed in the CC&R' s and in the white letter, and that information would be given to the homeowner before they bought any property. Mr. Diaz stated that the only copy of the letter staff would be interested in would be the final buyer. He suggested to the applicant that he get that letter signed whenever he received a deposit, but only forwarded a �► copy to the city when escrow closed. He felt that the applicant should also keep a copy. MR. CURT DUNHAM informed commission that along the side that was overlooking the one story homes were high bedroom windows and the bottom of the window began at four or five feet off the ground. On the back would be regular picture windows, but on the side they would have these higher windows. He also agreed to obtain the letters. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving two story units within TT 24287 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 12 ■o MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1991 X. COMMENTS " Commissioner Jonathan stated that on the two story guidelines, he would encourage staff to come up with something that would set a minimum of 20 feet for side yard separation. Mr. Diaz indicated that what they had were those distances approved before and at the public hearing it could be added on to it. He suggested that those standards when adopted would be the standard and if the minimum standard was not acceptable, the ordinance should be increased. Commissioner Richards recommended that the report/ordinance should take into account the privacy that everyone should enjoy. Mr. Diaz noted that the ordinance had already been advertised and commission could make changes at the hearing. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting to December 17, 1991 . Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 . RAM ON A. DIAZ,• c ary ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 13 Now