Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0218 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 18, 1992 7:Q0 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * � � * � * � * * � * * � * � * * * � * * * * * 'r I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan 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 Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Kandy Allen Joe Gaugush Steve Smith Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Consideration of the February 4, 1992 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the February 4, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCTL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent February 13 city council actions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 91-11 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the common lot line between lot 47 and 48 of Tract 25161, to adjust the common line of lot 48 of Tract 25161 and lot 50 of Tract 26018 . r.. MINUTES , PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 'I FEBRUARY 18, 1992 'I �� B. Case No. PMW 91-12 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, Applicant � Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the common side lot lines of lots 8 through 16 of Tract 26068. C. Case No. PMW 92-2 - DEEP CANYON I, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge a portion of lot H into , lot 25 and merge a portion of lot H into ' lot 36. ' D. Case No. PMW 92-3 - DEEP CANYON I, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge a portion of lot J into lot 10; merge a portion of lot J into lot 21; and merge a portion of lot 21 into lot 22. E. Case No. PMW 92-4 - DEEP CANYON I, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge lot K into lot 6. �► F. Case No. PMW 92-5 - MR. & MRS. PITRUZZELLI, Applicant i Request for approval to construct one ' single family residence spanning lots 34 and 35, Tract No. 11636-2 and merge lots I. 34 and 35. G. Case No. PP 89-32 - MR. LEVI LEHV, Applicant Request for approval of a one year time I� extension for a 4, 760 square foot medical office building on the south side of Fred Waring Drive between San Anselmo and Monterey Avenue. i Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. ; 2 � MINpTE5 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS +r A. Continued Case No. HDP 91-1 - ROBERT SCOTT SOHN, Applicant Request for approval of a hillside development plan to allow grading of the site and construction of a single family home on 1 .3 acres within the Hillside Planned Residential zone as delineated on the attached legal notice. Mr. Smith reviewed the background of the case. He noted that two main issues were the fire department comments and the fill dirt added to the property without a stock pile permit. Mr. Smith indicated there was a follow up letter from the fire marshal dated January 31, 1992 and item #3 clarified that he had not meant to imply that the bridge itself was substandard and in a conservation since, the fire marshal had talked with Mr. Sohn who agreed he would provide the hard surface road from Green Way to the Sohn residence, which would be added as a condition. Mr. Smith stated that should the bridge be inaccessible, the fire department response time would be longer. In terms of the fill on the site, that fill was still there and public works department reviewed the grading plan. He indicated that the fill could be used to implement the '"" grading plan public works would recommend. Staff would not recommend that they remove the fill and then bring it back. Mr. Gaugush stated that on the proposed grading plan, they were requiring a maximum elevation of 43 feet. He indicated that the applicant had requested 45 feet. Mr. Gaugush noted that he included contour maps in the packet and discussed his findings. Commission and staff discussed possible remedies to prevent/discourage illegal infill dumping in the future ( i.e. higher fines, litigation, enforcement) . Mr. Diaz and Ms. Al1en explained the situation with regard to court limitations on penalty amounts. Commissioner Richards mentioned other projects that had been a problem in the past and felt that illegal dumping affected the rights of surrounding properties. He also suggested staff obtain aerial photographs to establish an elevation record for all of Palm Desert for use in the future. He also suggested that building not be allowed on projects that have illegal dumping until the situation is 3 .... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 corrected or that person wins in court. Ms. Allen stated that the commission could do that now. � Mr. Smith recommended adoption of the resolution contained in the January 7, 1992 report. Commissioner Richards requested that meetings be scheduled with the CoacheZla Valley Water District, city staff, the commission, the fire marshal, and the county to reach an agreement on problems in the hillsides relative to road conditions/mitigation measures. After further discussion on the fire marshal ' s conditions, Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. He said no. 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. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant agreed to the level change; Mr. Sohn replied that the 43 foot grading height and the hard surface roadway requirement was fine with him-- he reiterated that the infill had been dumped without his knowledge, but he would do what needed to be done to rectify the situation. . � Commissioner Spiegel commented that he did not feel the applicant should be held responsible for something the city could not seem to control. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no) . Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1557, approving HDP 91-1, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Richards voted no) . B. Case No. TT 27409 - PORTOLA PALMS MOBILE HOME PARK, Applicant � Request for approval of a tenant impact report and tentative tract map to 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 subdivide an existing mobile park into a resident-zoned condominium park, via a ""� "one" lot subdivision, located on the west side of Portola Avenue between Magnesia Falls Drive and Rutledge Avenue. Mr. Winklepleck explained that this condominium conversion request was pursuant to the mobile home park purchase program that was part of the California Department of Housing and Development Program. He said this allowed existing residents the chance to purchase their lot. In order to assist in the purchase of the lot for the low and moderate income residents, the City of Palm Desert, the state and a private investor are financing loans totaling $4, 914, 000, of which the city' s investment was $464, 000. He noted there was a tenant impact report attached to the staff report that described conversion impacts of displaced residents. He stated there would not be any displaced residents in this case. The proposed map would follow the existing boundaries of the mobile home park and no design or circulation changes would occur. The minimum health and safety requirements recommended by the fire department were that fire hydrants should be properly marked and a secondary emergency access should be located to provide access in case of any problems. He explained that these improvements were added as conditions. He felt that the condominium conversion would solve rent control problems that the city has �"" had. He stated that two additional conditions needed to be added to the department of community development: #3 ) No existing residents shall be relocated as a result of this tentative tract map; and #4) A permanent location for the trash enclosures at the southwest corner of the property shall be established and approved by the department of community development. Staff recommended approval of the proposal . Commissioner Jonathan requested clarification on there being no displacement of the existing residents. Mr. Winklepleck stated that when the lot was subdivided, there would be some people living on the lots who might no wish to buy, but have a lease agreement. He said that condition #3 reiterated that those residents who did not wish to buy would not be "kicked out" as a result of the map. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a bump-up to fair market value rent and he asked how that would relate to the rent control provision that limited the amount of annual rent increases. He asked if the calculations could result in a higher increase then the limitation under the rent review ordinance would otherwise 5 r.r MINUTES PALM� DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 allow. Mr. Winklepleck replied that he thought it could; he indicated that it was controlled by the state. Commissioner � Jonathan noted that while staff was saying no one would be displaced, if the rent were drastically raised beyond the limitation that would have existed, then it could directly create a displacement. Commissioner Richards noted the concerns expressed by the fire marshal and the inadequacy of the fire hydrants and stressed the need for appropriate safety standards. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the project had to meet the minimum health and safety requirements. Mr. Diaz questioned a change of � ownership triggering the fire hydrant system in the project. �. He felt that if there was a problem with the adequacy of the fire hydrants, there was an obligation to correct it, but not the people now buying their own lots. Commission and staff discussed extensively the issue of who should be responsible for paying for any fire department requirements and the displacement issue of the intent versus the actual result. Mr. Diaz felt that since redevelopment agency funding was involved, staff could echo commission' s concerns on the displacement issue and ensure the rights of those individuals � are protected and that the rent increases wouldn't be so outlandish that they would negate the condition that no one would be dislocated and those comments would be sent to the city council and redevelopment agency. � Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. AMOS SUMMERS, 2048 Aldergrove Avenue in Escondido. He informed commission that he represented the residents in this case. He agreed with staff ' s recommendation and asked for approval . He clarified that the Assembly Committee on Housing spent three years to reach a fair solution to the displacement issue. He said that the rent will increase by the average of what the rent increases had been in the past four years. Those residents not in the low income bracket their rents would be increased between what they are currently paying and what market rents occur at MAI appraisals for over a four year period. This was the same type of policy adopted by ACD that runs the redevelopment assistance in the state. He described the process to amend the subdivision codes and noted that in the committee ' s discussion that amended section 66428, on one side there was a lack of 6 �■/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 support for changing all the improvements in an older � park to meet current standards because it was .. economically impossible to achieve in many cases because you couldn' t change street widths without removing some of the mobile homes. The committee determined that the changes that should occur in a park were those of significant health and safety conditions and not just to bring up the park to current standards. He felt that the conversion was to allow the residents a feeling of security that the rents would not increase any more. Even with rent control there was always increases. He stated that the residents had reached a point where they could not stand any more increases and the solution was to convert parks into resident ownership. He said that almost 85$ of the people would purchase their spaces. He indicated that the residents thanked the city for their support and the states. He noted that over 65% of the park residents would receive assistance and congratulated the city for this effort. After extensive discussion between the commission, the applicant, and staff as to fire department conditions versus the project' s current standards, commission instructed staff to add to the conditions that the fire safety standards implemented would be to the satisfaction of the fire marshal. Mr. Diaz also noted that if there was any disagreement between 'r" the tenants and the fire marshal, the matter could come back between the tentative map and final map approval. 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. Commissioner powns informed commission that he would be abstaining because he owns property in the area. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move to adopt the findings as amended by: 1 ) comments regarding potentially displaced tenants facing undue high rent increase concerns would be conveyed to council/redevelopment agency; and 2 ) the recommendation from Clyde Chittenden should be changed to say that the conditions required would be to his satisfac�ion, rather than the specific recommendations. 7 �... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIS5ION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner � Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner powns abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1558, � approving TT 27409, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner powns abstained) . C. Case No. PP 92-1 - JAMES FETRIDGE (FOR JAMES PALMER) , I Applicant Request for approval of a 7945 square foot two-story office complex located in an office professional zone on the west side of Monterey Avenue, 1000 feet south of Fred Waring Drive. � Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He said that with the exception of the height issue which the ; architectural commission was still pursuing, the project complied with the ordinance requirements and he recommended approval, subject to the conditions. wr► Commissioner Spiegel asked why this case was brought to planning commission prior to it receiving architectural commission approval. Mr. Smith explained that 28 days was required for the legal noticing of public hearing items for planning commission, and afte� two meetings with the architectural commission staff had expected to be able to proceed with this case. He noted that if commission wished, it could continue the case until the architectural commission was satisfied. He also clarified that staff and the ' architectural commission was requiring a reduction in height so that the building height did not exceed 25 feet when measured from the curb height at the midpoint of the lot. Staff was not recommending a height waiver for a property in this zone next to residential property. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JIM FETRIDGE, project architect, stated that commission was looking at a print that was the first 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 submittal to the architectural commission and at the second meeting before architectural commission he had '""' reduced the height to stay within the limits. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Fetridge to explain why the case had not been passed at that second meeting. Mr. Fetridge stated that he had the total height of the top of the building at 25. 6 instead of 25 and he had the two vertical elements at 26 feet. He indicated that he was taking the liberty that it was inferred by the writing of the code for this type of property that certain deviations would be allowed if the architectural commission approved it. He said that he reduced the height of the total building to 25 feet, which was the maximum. Mr. Smith clarified the proposal was too high. He explained that the pads along Monterey Avenue were 18 inches above the street and the height was measured from the curb elevation, not the center of the lot. He stated that the building from finished floor to roof top would have to be less than 23 feet in order to comply with the height limit. Commissioner Richards noted that this was an office professional zone, not commercial, which meant that the � building had to be sensitive to the neighbors. Mr. Fetridge informed commission that he got the grading plan from the road department and established the curb heights, and from that he established the grade at the . building and the height was within the limit. He said that he established his grade at six inches above the curb height and there was an 18 inch elevation. He indicated they would grade that down so that from there to the top of the building was 24 ' 6" and the code was 25 feet. Mr. Diaz explained to Mr. Fetridge that the code says that it has to be measured from the curb height. He recommended a continuance until the case received architectural commission approval . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. 9 r..► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner � Richards, continuing PP 92-1 to March 17, 1992. Carried 4-0- 1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Response from the Department of Public Works to several Planning Commission Concerns Commission and staff discussed the technical traffic committee, valet parking procedures, traffic circulation at San Luis Rey/Alessandro Drive and traffic circulation at Cook Street/Sheryl Avenue. Commission thanked Mr. Safavian for his response. Action• No action was necessary. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. � X. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Spiegel felt that there should be better communication between the planning department and the fire marshal. He stated that issues come up every meeting with problems relating to the fire marshal conditions. He indicated that an hour and a half had been taken to discuss a fire department question, and it had never been answered. Mr. Diaz informed commission that he would ask Mr. Chittenden to attend the meetings in the future. 2. Commissioner Spiegel expressed concern about the dangerous situation on Monterey and Fred Waring on Saturdays and Sundays where there were supposed to be no parking signs posted. Mr. Safavian stated that the no parking signs were installed last Monday on Monterey and Fred Waring and they had given a grace period to the drivers. He said that the extension of the parking prohibition started from Magnesia Falls on Monterey to 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1992 Fred Waring and on Fred Waring between Monterey and San Pablo on both sides. He indicated that he had drafted ""' a letter to the sheriff ' s department informing them about the restriction and they would start issuing citations next week. 3. Commissioner powns asked what was being done on the property at the old ARCO gas station site on the southwest corner of Portola and Highway 111 . Mr. Diaz indicated that they were cleaning up the dirt from the hazardous waste. 4. Commissioner Richards noted that ARCO does not have any signs posted on the restroom doors and also wondered if it was accessible to the handicapped. Mr. Diaz stated that he would check into it. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adjourning the meeting to March 3, 1992. Carrie 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. ""' RAM N A. DIAZ• ec ary EST: / RICHARDS, Vice Chairman /tm 11 ....