Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0204 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 4, 1992 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * �r * * * * � * * * * * * ,i.., I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Bob Spiegel Members Absent: None s Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Kandy Allen Tonya Monroe Jeff Winklepleck IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ..� Consideration of the January 21, 1992 meeting minutes. Action: After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the January 21, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent January 23 city council action. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 90-23 - ENJOY DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a first one year time extension for an approved 80, 300 square foot commercial retail project on an 8. 5 acre site at the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Town Center Way. r.... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5- �r 0. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. PP 91-14, ADJ 91-4 - SCHMITZ/ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan and an adjustment to allow construction of a ten unit apartment complex at 44-555 San Rafael Avenue in the R-3 S.O. zone. Mr. Winklepleck reviewed the background of the case and outlined the salient points of the staff report. He recommended a continuance to March 3 to allow the applicant to either obtain title to the property or modify his plan. Upon questioning by Commis�sioner Richards, Mr. Winklepleck stated that the problem occurred because the applicant was still shown on the records as the owner. Commission and staff discussed what would have happened if the request had been granted when the applicant did not own the property and what could be done in the future to be sure it did not happen again. Mr. Diaz felt that staff did all it could by looking up in the assessor books to verify the owner of the property. .�r Commissioner Spiegel asked if the questions brought up at the last meeting had been resolved; Mr. Winklepleck indicated the property ownership issue was a problem that had to be addressed first and the unresolved issues would be resolved by the time the project came back. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, applicant, felt there was a misunderstanding on the totality of what had happened. He said the facts were that they had owned both parcels to begin with. Before they deeded away the northerly parcel, they received an easement for parking, landscaping, and block wall purposes. That easement was recorded and reserved when they deeded the property away. They assumed they could use that property for parking. He said they never intended to build on it nor did the 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 site plan show building on it. He explained that was how the situation arose. The staff took the position that , ,` they could not use that density. They met with the ' adjoining property owner on several occasions since the last commission meeting and felt they had a "meeting of the minds" as to how he would deed that property to them and the enumeration involved. He said that part of it was solved. He said that they thought that it might be best to look at constructing eight units and not involving that property owner, even though they had that ' easement for parking. He said they were looking at constructing the eight units and had redrawn the site plan, but did not have the floor plans completed, nor the elevation views. He felt they would be able to complete : that part of it and would take it back to architectural commission for approval and present it back to the commission with those eight units, rather than ten. With respect to the utility easements, he met with the power company and they felt that everything was possible, although it was not iridicated that it would be feasible because the cost would be very high. He said that had yet to be resolved. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. � Commissioner Richards felt the applicant appeared to indicate that there was a procedural problem and asked staff for clarification. Mr. Winklepleck noted that an easement could be changed at any time and staff felt the easement could not be used as part of the area to calculate density, regardless if there was an easement for parking or not. Mr. Diaz suggested that the commission ask the applicant to withdraw this application and file a new one, once it was determined exactly what was being applied for. He asked the city attorney if this would be better than just a continuance and coming back with another project. Ms. Allen stated that she did not feel it made any difference. Commissioner Jonathan stated that if a project could stand on its own for density, what would it matter if there was actual ownership of the actual land if there was an easement that was legally deeded over and a project was approved on that basis. He asked if there was some mechanism that if anything changed, permission would be withdrawn. Mr. Diaz noted that permission 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 could be withdrawn, but the building would already be there. He said they had worked with long-range parking easements in the past, but normally there would be an overlay type plan in � case that easement changed. Commissioner Jonathan felt that what staff was worried about was that the adjacent property owner would come in, pull the easement through some agreement, tear down the parking lot and build on it. Mr. Diaz indicated that it was unusual situation since the applicant had owned this property and why a deal was made with easements was unclear to him, particularly if the new owner couldn' t use it anyway and would be paying taxes on that property. He noted that a simple lot line adjustment would have solved that ', problem. He said that in this case things should be kept simple and while he did not enjoy dalaying developers, he did not like wasting commission or staff' s time. I Commissioner Richards stated that he did not like this project; he indicated that he wanted to see a better-looking development and he did not like the way it was done or understand the motivation on the part of the developer. He said that he wanted to see a new project with eight units come back and that would be his motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the proposal were denied, would they lose their application fees; Mr. Diaz answered that they would lose the application fee if a new application was filed. Staff � indicated that the fee was approximately $220. ..r l Mr. Diaz outlined commission' s options: they could 1 ) deny the � application based on the inaccuracy of the in` �rmation i initially provided regarding the ownership of the lan� and the resolution would be before commission at their next meeting; � or 2 ) continue this to a date uncertain and instruct staff to � re-advertise this hearing with the revised proposal and the � applicant would not have to refile. Commissioner Richards stated that it was not his intent to cost the applicant undue : hardship financially, but he recommended to Mr. Schmitz that ; when he brought in the next proposal, it should meet the city i requirements. He stated that Palm Desert was a fair city that � did business in an honest way and expected to be treated the � same way. Commissioner Richards stated that he would vote i for a continuance to a time certain to allow the applicant to ; bring back the changes. � Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked for ' a motion of continuance. I 4 1 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 It was clarified that no re-advertising would be necessary and the applicant would come back with a project based on eight „�, units, which would save the applicant a re-application fee and allow him to come back with a new plan. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing PP 91-14, ADJ 91-4 to March 3, 1992. Carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 91-13 - DUGGAN AND SUSAN LANROS, Applicants Request for approval of a six unit apartment complex located east of San Pablo between Santa Rosa Way and Catalina Way. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . ` Commissioner Spiegel asked for and received clarification that the unit size being provided was 900 square feet, and the ordinance requirement was a minimum of 800 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the fire marshal ' s condition ,r #15 regarding the roadway not to be less than 24 feet. He thought the proposed driveway was less than that. Mr. Diaz indicated that in the final working drawings that would have to be adjusted and the fire marshal would okay the final plan, preferably prior to issuance of building permits. He noted that it was in the community development conditions that the project would have to meet all code requirements. If they couldn' t meet code for any reason, it would have to come back to the planning commission. Chairperson Whitlock noted that in her business they have insurance for directors and officers; she asked if there was anything similar for planning commissioners. Mr. Diaz stated that the commission was protected by the city in terms of any personal liabilities so long as the commission was acting within the limitations of their authority. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked for ' comments by the applicant. There was no response. , 5 .o. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock asked if there anyone present who wished to address the commission on behalf of the applicant. There was no response and it was concluded that neither the � applicant or representatives were present. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MR. PETE GRIFFITHS, 73-460 Santa Rosa Way, noted that San Pablo street was not marked at all going into the entrance and had been left like that for years. He asked if the city would be re-marking the road to get into this driveway or if they would approve it now without seeing the final approach into the project. Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Griffiths that the only difference in the driveway opening was that the driveway would be widened to meet the fire department requirements. As far as the street lines were concerned, this project had no control of that. � Mr. Griffiths stated that the street was divided with two lanes up by San Gorgonio by Circle K and approaching Fred Waring the lines disappeared and people tried to pass on the right side. He felt the road needed to be defined before putting another entrance onto it. � Mr. Holtz informed him that the street could be restriped to possibly accommodate that, but he did not know the geometrics of the dedicated left turn lane at Fred Waring or how far that came back. He stated that the dedicated left turn lane had to be protected. Mr. Diaz suggested that the project be conditioned that the applicant shall pay for the re-striping to create two travel lanes if it were possible and would be approved by the department of public works. He said that would make sure the lanes were painted. Mr. Griffiths asked if there was a wall in addition to the landscaping being provided in the front area to block out the parking area as much as possible. Mr. Diaz noted there was just landscaping being provided. Mr. Griffiths stated that there were single family homes across the street and these two story projects kept going in. He indicated he bought his property and then the zoning 6 � , MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 changed and the parking master plan added. He indicated that this project sat back from the road and did not ,� interfere with the single family homes compared to another project on the corner of Santa Rosa and San Pablo. He felt that some of the parking area should be blocked from view. Mr. Diaz indicated that a three foot wall could be required. Commissioner Richards suggested a continuance since there was no one present to speak for the applicant. He felt that a representative of the developer needed to be present. MR. GORDON STEIN, 44-858 San Juan Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he worked on the design for the project. He said that when the project was designed, which was within all the codes, they tried to take into consideration any impact. That was why they set the building back. They tried to be sensitive to the uses around them. He felt they had much less impact than a lot of other buildings. . Chairperson Whitlock noted that Mr. Griffiths wanted to know about the screening and landscaping on the front of the pro�ect. She asked Mr. Stein to elaborate as to what was being provided to hide the parking area. Mr. Stein indicated that the landscape plan would be ,� before the architectural commission again and they had redone that to provide maximum screening up front within the basic city requirements for plant size and material . Chairperson Whitlock asked if he felt they were providing the maximum amount of screening. Mr. Stein replied that they were doing a real good job of it. Commissioner Richards noted that the commission tried to accommodate the neighbors. Mr. Stein clarified that the basic architecture and structure had been approved by the architectural commission; the plant material would be reviewed for changes. Mr. Diaz stated the conceptual plan had been approved and the final plant palette was required to be done. He said that the parking lot by code was required to be screened, particularly at the entrance. Commissioner powns asked the applicant if there was an objection to a three foot block wall in the front, between the first parking stall and the landscaped area. Mr. Stein 7 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 replied that he did not have an objection, but wondered if that would be better to look at then with the nicely done plants. He said that if it came down to that they would be �f willing to do that. Chairperson Whitlock did not feel a three foot wall would be a benefit. She stated that she would rather see some restrictions on the plant material, even if it were just to require a larger five or ten gallon plant versus a one or three. She felt that would do more than a three foot wall . Mr. Diaz said that staff could carry forth the message to the architectural commission -.nd explain to them that as a condition of this commissi_:i, the landscaping would provide dense screening of the parking area. Commissioner Richards informed Mr. Stein that he hoped he was successful in his business in Palm Desert, but recommended that when he represented an applicant, he should address the commission and make sure he has the authority to make changes required by the commission `on behalf of the applicant. Commissioner powns asked about making final landscape requirements when the there might be drought resistent varieties that might be required. Mr. Diaz noted that it was the architectural commission that reviewed the landscaping and drought tolerant material . He stated that the planning commission condition for the screening of the parking and the �.i record would reflect that the applicant, after the planting was in, would provide additional planting if necessary in order to get the screening to an acceptable level . He indicated that as another safeguard, the wording could be added, "or a three foot masonry wall . " Commissioner powns felt that the either/or should be included. Mr. Diaz indicated that it could be the decision of the community development director, and he knew that the commission preferred the landscaping. Commissioner Spiegel indicated that on the north side of the project there was a wooden wall and then a single story apartment complex. The proposal was for two story and it would abut that single story project. He asked if the second story would be able to look down into the single story apartment project. Mr. Stein replied yes. Mr. Diaz noted that the praj ect on the north was an old pro j ect. I f this project were restricted to one story, even though the zoning allows two, if that one story pro�ect was torn down and a new 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 project came in, the city would have to restrict him to one story, even if he did not request to be protected. �„ Commissioner Spzegel asked about the effect on the current tenants. Mr. Diaz did not feel the proposal would have any undue impact on their lifestyles. Chairperson Whitlock also noted that no one was present in opposition. Commissioner Richards indicated that the tenants were not notified about the hearing because the owners were the ones notified. Mr. Diaz noted that if tenants were notified and if the tenants ' came in and did not want the two story building next to them, and the property owner did not want to be protected and wanted to be able to build two stories, who would have ultimate right--the owner or the tenants. He felt the way the city did it now by notifying the property owner was correct because they were the one with the most to gain or lose was the proper way to do it. Mr. Griffiths asked if there was a sidewalk along San Pablo. . Mr. Holtz indicated it was shown on the tentative map and noted that all that was there now was the deck of a catch basin that was six feet wide. Mr. Diaz said that a sidewalk would be put installed. Chairperson Whitlock clarified for Mr. Griffiths that the ,� commission would make a recommendation to the architectural commission for upgraded landscaping. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards discussed the comments made by Commissioner Spiegel and Mr. Diaz regarding tenant versus property owner rights. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in this case, the zoning permitted the two story use and the developer/owner knew that when he builds something; also, when commission looked at the potentially injured party and who has more at stake and when the impacted party was an apartment renter, the forces of free market would have to come into play. A renter could leave, but an owner had more at stake and in this instance, if he were concerned or felt the two story had a potential negative impact on his property, he should have been at the meeting, Commissioner Richards stated that he just wanted staff and commission to understand this could be setting a precedence and this was the first time that he could remember that there was a question like this. He 9 +�. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 noted that there could be problems in the future, especially when considering the effect of the two story windows looking down onto a single story building. �i Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Stein about the second story windows being provided on the proposed project that faced the single story complex. Mr. Stein indicated that these were bedroom windows and they had to be there for ingress/egress in case of a fire. He mentioned that down that side of the � property there were three large eucalyptus trees on the adjacent property. Commissioner Richards felt that this would come up again in the future and was satisfied with commission' s discussion. Mr. Diaz noted that for conditional use permits in commercial areas and commercial centers, the city did require a list of shop owners so that they were notified as well as the owner. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the fZndings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1555, approving PP 91-13 subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. w VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP 91-12 - STERLING PARTNERS, INC. , Applicant A resolution denying a precise plan for a 161 unit single family pro�ect on 23 acres on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 1400 feet east of Cook Street. Action• Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel , adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1556, denying PP 91-12. Carried 5-0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. DENNIS GOSTE, 684 Vista Lago Circle North in Palm Desert, asked staff if there was a date set on the appeal for Case No. 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 1992 PP 91-12 to go to city council . Mr. Diaz replied that he did not have a date yet, but indicated that Mr. Goste could ,�,,, contact his office for the date and if he was within 300 feet, he would automatically receive notification. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan expressed concern about the traffic situation at the intersection of Sheryl and Cook Street. It was indicated that Mr. Seyed Safavian of public works would be requested to attend the next meeting to review the status of the situation with commission and it would also be referred to the technical traffic committee. Commissioner powns also indicated there was a need for a four- way stop at Alessandro and San Luis Rey. Mr. Diaz indicated that this would also be referred to the traffic committee and Mr. Safavian would be at the next meeting to address the issues. . Commissioner Richards said that he read the accounts of the recent bus accident on Highway 74 and commended staff and city hall for their response to that situation. He felt this was an example of how being prepared made a situation work and felt Mr. Diaz and all the staff did a great job. Commission concurred. ~ XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting to February 18, 1992. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p . . l�►�►2%�'77 • � RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec ary ATTEST: CAROL HITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 11 �