Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0421 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 21, 1992 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER '` 73-5I0 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * � � � � � � � * � * � � � � � * � � * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner powns led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Robert Spiegel Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Bob Hargreaves Jeff W�nklepleck �..� Gregg Holtz Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Considera�ion of the April 7, 1992 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the April 7, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Spiegel abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no April 9 city council actions pertinent to planning commission decisions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 92-6 - JOHN & GERALDINE GULDER, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line ad�ustment between two parcels between San Pascual and San Juan Avenues. � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � Action• Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. RV 91-5 - MR. ROBERT BARBOZA, Applicant Request for approval to park a recreational vehicle and a trailer in the front yard area at 74-691 Candlewood Street. Mr. Diaz indicated that this item had been continued from the last meeting. He stated that he met with Mr. Barboza and he had drawn up one plan and was working on another alternative. He said that Mr. Barboza was requesting an additional two weeks. Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public testimony and asked if � anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing RV 91-5 to May 5, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. B. Continued Case No. C/Z 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the city council of the prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to PC(3 ) (regional commercial ) , SI (service industrial ) and PCD (planned community development) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto. Mr. Smith stated that this item was continued from March 17. He noted that a letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen ( see attached 2 �I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 ��.. exhibit A) was received, representing the Rancho Mirage Industrial Property, which was part of the proposed annexation area. He outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended that the city proceed with the annexation with a negative declaration of environmental impact. Mr. Diaz indicated that he met with representatives of the McLeod/Couch Development and they wished to be on the record as adopting the comments raised by Ms. Ludvigsen with regard to the environmental process. Staff ' s position was that this area had several environmental impact reports done on it in the past and based on those reports and the mitigation measures and fees imposed, plus the fact that any project would have to go through the environmental review process, staff felt a negative declaration of environmental impact was sufficient at this time. Commissioner Spiegel noted that in that letter the public review period should not be less than 30 days. Mr. Smith stated that staf£' s position was only a recommendation and if commission proceeds with approval to city council, the first council reading would be May 14 and second reading May 28, r... both of which were public hearing items. Mr. Diaz noted that the item had been continued one month and they were aware of that. Mr. Diaz clarified that certain developers had done environmental impact reports on their own projects and when those projects come through, they would have to go through the environmental review process individually, but the county had not done an environmental impact report on that whole area. Mr. Smith noted that the county did a Western Coachella Valley Plan when they adopted their general plan. It was noted that Rancho Mirage Industrial Park was doing an EIR on their own parcel. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was concerned about traffic impacts and air quality which could not be mitigated. Mr. Diaz stated that staff was concerned abou� the environmental impacts of any project, but staff' s position at this time was that the prezoning annexation did not build a project. At this point staff was saying that each project would be looked at individually when submitted. Commissioner Downs asked if the EIR for the north sphere by WRT would carry over for preannexation purposes. Mr. Diaz replied yes, that it would at this time. ••� 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. MR. TOM DODSON, representing four parties who own proper�y within the annexation area ( Steve Ordner, Gale Messick, Reuyen International, Rancho Mirage Industrial Park) as an environmental consultant. He informed commission that all parties do not oppose being ultimately annexed into the city. He stated that the problem was the timing of the action. He indicated that he had been involved in the project site since 1982,� when he helped conduct the original biological survey for the fringe-toed lizard. The EIR for the designation on the property was to change it from the general designation/ holding zone to an industrial designation. He stated that four years later the applicant requested a general plan amendment to have a general plan designation on the western portion abutting Monterey Avenue designated as commercial. At that time the project made a substantial contribution to the existing Monterey overpass. In the decision the county made, they indicated they wanted the pro�ect to come back through with an environmental impact ,�,� report for a zone change and tract map to implement the commercial designation. He informed commission that they went to court with the City of Rancho Mirage on the Goleta Decision which determined that alternative sites were required. He said that later the decision was amended. Mr. Dodson indicated that in Riverside County there was a community facilities district that would generate a substantial amount of dollars and this project on its own would contribute more than $1.2 million to the new overpass at Monterey and the freeway. He said there were additional facilities this district would fund and it would include more than just the project site for Rancho Mirage Industrial Park. He indicated they had been working with the county for the last eight years to get the pro�ect built in a legal interaction with the City of Rancho Mirage and preparation of an environmental document. He requested that a recommendation be made to the city council that they reject the prezone at this time or continue the project until resolution with Riverside County. He again stated that there was no ultimate opposition to the annexation to the city, but under the current circumstances they would have to oppose it. ' 4 �i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 .... Mr. Diaz stated that was a decision the council could make and just because the property was prezoned, it did not prevent the county from making a decision. He said tha� Palm Desert ' s policy had always been that they would implement or Gpprove and accept the approvals of the county. He did not see a problem unless the county refused to make a decision. Mr. Dodson indicated that he does all the LAFCO environmental consulting for the County of San Bernardino and had worked with the Riverside LAFCO. The standard process they utilize was that when looking at a prezone, it had to be reviewed as an actual zoning action, because as soon as the property is annexed, it would come in under the zone created. The difficulty in this circumstance was that when there was a specific project in process and the action was associated with those, there was a general tenant in CEQA that the specific project be evaluated with the understanding that the action would allow the use to occur. They wished to develop 123 acres of commercial and 50-60 acres of industrial development. He said there was a specific tract and for the city to be establishing a zone to .. facilitate that use created a situation that if CEQA was approved on the prezone, his attorney advised them that would be a flawed decision. To prevent that flawed decision from going to litigation later should the City o� Rancho Mirage choose to do so, they have litigated them twice already, then they would be in a posture with a flawed decision of going back to the beginning. They didn't want that to happen. He felt the key issues were air quality and traffic. The traffic impacts associated with this pro�ect and accumulative projects in the area estimate 75, 000-80, 000 trips per day along Monterey Avenue. Monterey was designed to be a six lane traffic corridor. That would not be sufficient to handle the ultimate traffic being projected in that location. The mitigation measures discussed with the county could alleviate some of that, but some of those were offsite impacts cumulative in nature. This pro,ject could not pick up the cost for all of those costs for offsites. He stated that was the purpose of the TUMF fee. He indicated that they could not guarantee that the TUMF fee would fund the traffic improvements needed at the same rate the development might proceed. Regarding air quality, with that many traffic trips per day would a lot of emissions would be created. He said that they exceed �• 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � the thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in its handbook for environmental impact reports. Based upon the fact that they exceed those thresholds, they concluded there would be a significant adverse impact on air quality ( just from the 173 acres of the Rancho Mirage Industrial Park) and the whole area was 400 acres, some of which was developed. He stated that they don' t oppose the designation, they don' t oppose being in the city, but do oppose the city making a flawed decision in a manner that would effect the timeliness of their working with the county and causing them to lose all they had worked for up to this point because of the negotiations. He requested a denial or continuance until they reached closure with the county. Commissioner powns asked when closure was expected. Mr. Dodson stated that he did not know and had been in this process for almost ten years now. They had incorporated every mitigation measure requested, gone far above what most people have made commitments to and they had questions as to what could be done for air quality. � He indicated they would go back to hearing in May and hoped they had resolved those issues. He wanted to see them through the process into June and through the statute of limitations in July and finish in Riverside County. He stated that the facilities district in the county would benefit this area tremendously. Mr. Diaz stated that the city did not know when or if the decision would be made by the county; they did not know if those decisions made would be challenged by the City of Rancho Mirage, but he did know there had been agreements with the county concerning Price Club and Home Base and developments that had already taken place to bring them into the city. To wait and see if the county made a decision in May that might be appealed with mitigation measures they would have to do anyway, and to be asked to delay the annexation based on what may happen he felt was wrong. He recommended the city proceed with the annexation and the zoning as covered by the EIR and noted that Palm Desert had responded to those issues and was on the record as an interested party. Mr. Dodson stated that if this action harmed their ability to get the project approved through the county, 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 r.. they were then in a place where they might have to challenge the CEQA decision made by Palm Desert because they did not want a flawed decision that would cause them a problem in the future. He said a favorable dEcision would force them into a confrontational mode, which they did not want to do. He requested that this be considered. Mr. Diaz responded that a property owner was not forced to do anything, it was a choics they had to make. Commissioner Richards asked the reason for the timeliness of this action. Mr. Diaz replied the financial agreements executed with the county with regards to the future county facilities from revenues raised by the Price Club and Home Base; those agreements had times running. AZso, development in that area continued and the city needed to get control and the litigation between the cities and different property owners had already created some obligations that Palm Desert might not agree 100� with, but would have to accept. If that area was ready for development, the city should be controlling it now. He reminded commission that in the case of Sunrise ' s ... Indian Ridge project, with 640 vacant acres and no one opposing annexation, it took nine months from the time it was submitted to LAFCO to complete. Mr. Diaz did not feel there should be a delay now and felt comfortable with proceeding with the negative declaration of environmental impact. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Dodson indicated that their attorneys felt that the city was inviting litigation. He asked if our legal staff had reviewed this and looked at the likelihood of litigation, Mr. Diaz stated that there is a possibility of litigation, but he did not know if they would be successful. He did not feel a decision should be based on whether or not litigation would occur. Mr. Diaz said that staff might recommend an EIR which could be done in 45 days rather than going through litigation, but the choice of whether or not someone decides to litigate is up to them. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Hargreaves to comment on the sequence of events that might or might not happen. Mr. Hargreaves said that this was the first opportunity he had to see the letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen and it would take a good deal of time to research thoroughly all those issues. He also stated that if an action was taken and the CEQA action leading up to that action was flawed, then the action was sub,ject to ... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � litigation and court order voiding that action later. On the other hand, if commission recommends and the council approves it, there was a 30 day notice of determination period. If litigation was filed within that period there was a pz•oblem. If it was not filed within that period, then the city was past that hurdle. Mr. Diaz reminded commission that after two different EIRs and hearings before commission and city council, there was still litigation on the Altamira project. Doing an environmental impact report would not insure no litigation. Mr. Diaz stated that the city had evaluated the pro�ect and submitted comments. While Mr. Dodson represented a large amount of acreage, he did not represent a majority of the acreage or the majority of the value involved. MRS. KATRINA HEINRICH STEINBERG, spoke as representative for property owners of 180 gross acres on the north side of Gerald Ford from Monterey Avenue to Portola, which was one quarter of Section 29 . She said they were in the process of getting a tentative map approved on approximately 130 acres of this property on the north side of Gerald Ford and they were going for 291 � residential lots for single family homes to be retailed out from between $195, 000-$275, 000. She felt if there was an industrial park planned on the north boundary of their property, she needed to know now because they had already spent S1 million in assessments for improvements and $175,000 to get their map processed to create a high caliber residential project. She did not foresee anyone purchasing a home next to an industrial park. She noted that the topography of her site created views to the south and north. She said that regarding Mr. Dodson' s contribution to the overpass, Mr. Steinberg (the majority owner in this property) had been more responsible than anyone in getting Monterey through to begin with so equally the contribution of other owners should be taken into consideration. She said that the neighbors and their pro�ected developments should be considered. MR. MYRON MCLEOD, owner of 70 acres north of the Steinberg property. He said that he had worked with the city a long time and just found out about the housing pro�ect to the south and they currently were working on a buffer around their proposal . He failed to see how the prezone would effect Mr. Dodson' s group. He felt it 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 +w. would strengthen his decision. Mr. McLeod recommended approval and felt that some of the property owners around them had been aware of their project. As to the traffic study, that issue concerned them and part of their proposal would be an in-depth evaluation. Mr. McLeod clarified that their proposal would include a small shopping center, light commercial, small shops and a restaurant. He felt this was a good transition between the two properties. He said that he had a zoning of planned commercial development which did not include residential use. He indicated that he was aware of the service industrial use surrounding his property. He clarified that he had talked to his neighbors about possible traffic patterns, but not specific types of use. He stated that to their north was commercial that the county was working on and all around him was commercial and service industrial . He informed commission that they some plans they showed staff. MRS. MARY STOLTZMAN, 74-055 Highway 111, stated that she was present with Mr. Messick, who was the general partner of Monterey Palms which was the 72 acres on the westerly "' side of Portala. She said that the service industrial prezone was acceptable to him and was currently general planned that way in the county since 1988. She did not feel this should be a surprise to Katrina Heinrich on her 130 acre pro�ect to the south. She said they were in favor of the service industrial zoning, but Mr. Messick was in the community facilities district and shared the same concerns with Mr. Dodson on that. • Chairperson Whitlock closed the pubZic hearing and asked for comments. Commissioner powns stated that he was ready to move approval and forward this to council . Commissioner Richards noted that there had been a study group for the north sphere area and indicated that the uses being proposed were always intended that way. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was concerned about some of the issues raised, particularly the traffic and air quality problems, but was persuaded by staff that this was not the time to deal with those. He said that eventually the city would deal with these problems, but right now it was just ""' 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � prezoning for annexation purposes. He stated that he did not have a problem with the proposal . Commissioner Richards concurred with staff. � Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1564, recommending to city council approval of C/Z 92-1 . Carried 5- 0. C. Continued Case No. CUP 92-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and certification of the draft environmental impact report pertaining thereto, for construction of civic center „r, ballfields and corporate yard on the northerly vacant third of 72 acres acquired by Palm Desert for development of a civic center park. The project involves the development of four lighted ballfields, a corporate yard, concession stand, restrooms, parking, and other recreation facilities. Mr. Diaz stated that staff was recommending a continuance to May 5 and was presently working on plans; David Evans had done some drawings and staff was doing some drawings. He said they would be taking the plans to the Civic Center Steering Committee on Friday, April 24. He indicated that he had met with Monterey Country Club representatives and their attorney and representatives from the Vineyards area. He said that the new plan would try to relieve the concerns that were raised at that time with regards to parking, usage and noise. He noted that the plans would not have the corporate yard on them. Commissioner Richards felt that all the. ma�or obstacles had been resolved. 10 �i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 .... Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. LEE BOREY, 71-406 Verage Road in Rancho Mirage, stated that he was in favor of the ballfields. MRS. DONNA AYOTTE, 4200 Sagewood in Palm Desert, informed commission that she was present in favor and she was representing her baseball team, which included 12 families. She complimented the city on the beauty of the civic center park. � Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing CUP 92-2 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report to May 5, 1992. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 90-23A - RISTORANTE CAFE MILANO, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a ,�, conditional use permit allowing a total of five outside dining tables at 73-375 E1 Paseo. The applicant withdrew their request. Action: No further commission action is needed. E. Case No. CUP 92-4 - DAVID MCRAE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a fitness training center within an existing 6600 square foot industrial building in the Service Industrial zone on the west side of Corporate Way, 300 feet south of Hovley Lane East, at 41-601 Corporate Way. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions. He noted that if a problem developed, this item would be brought back for public hearing. �, ' 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID MCRAE addressed the commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. McRae if there were 39 parking spaces; Mr. McRae replied yes, that the parking exceeded code requirements. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner powns, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1565, approving CUP 92-4 sub�ect to conditions. Carried 5-0. F. Case No. CUP 92-3 - GEORGE BUONO ( for Nicolino' s) , � Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 2800 square foot restaurant with on-site beer, wine and spirits at 74-991 Avenue 42. Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff , report and recommended approval, subject to the conditians provided in the resolution. Commissioner powns stated that he wanted to ensure there were plenty of parking spaces. Mr. Diaz indicated there were 52 spaces onsite and staff could require that they be painted when the restaurant opened. After further discussion, Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the parking requirement was one space per 1, 000 square feet. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. There was no response. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commission determined that a continuance would be in order. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing CUP 92-3 to May 5, 1992. Carried 5-0. G. Case No. TT 27055 - DAVID FREEDMAN & CO. , Applicant Request for approval of a 296 lot single family subdivision and negative declaration of environmental impact located north of Gerald Ford Drive, 700 feet east of Monterey Avenue and 680 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recammended approval subject to the conditions in the ` resolution. Commissioner Richards asked for comments relative to the proximity of the pro�ect to the railroad and freeway. Mr. Diaz stated that it was beyond the 2000 feet noise line that was reserved for industrial/regional commercial zones. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the western 40 acres, the park designation and how the redevelopment agency purchase on Portola and Gerald Ford related to this. Mr. Diaz indicated that the city acquired 140 acres and planned ballfields there until front-end costs were determined to be too high. He stated that the western portion along Monterey Avenue was zaned commercial. Commiseioner Richards asked if staff was comfortable that the uses to the north and/or west were compatible and asked if this would be a walled community. Mr. Diaz replied yes, it was going to be walled and felt that through the development process, they would ensure that the developments to the north, west and east were compatible. Commissioner Richards wanted it clear thgt people knew what was being proposed on adjacent properties. Mr. Diaz felt confident staff and commission would make sure of the compatibility. He indicated the ideal � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 .�r situation would be that Mr. McLeod' s project proceeded and the workers lived in this development. Commissioner Jonathan asked about a condition that tied this pro�ect directly to the improvement/expansion of the Monterey onramp. Mr. Diaz stated that this project had to pay TUMF fees, which would be their regional obligation. As far as the Monterey onramp assessment district, they would have the same rights to join or protest it or the Cook Street one. He noted that this property owner had been very active in construction of the Monterey onramp. The fact that it was only two lanes was not his fault. He had also been one of the leading movers to establish the assessment district for Monterey and Cook Street. Commissioner Jonathan asked about timing; Mr. Diaz felt it would be a minimum of three years for the Monterey onramp to be expanded. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB MAINERO, civil engineer, stated that he would like to address two of the public works conditions. He indicated that condition no. 19 dealing with � undergrounding of all overhead utilities; he said there was an existing 115 volt Edison power line along Gerald Ford and was told that the cost to underground was approximately $2.3 million. That would be $700-$800 per unit. He felt that was an excessive burden and asked that the condition be deleted. Also condition no. 12 dealing with the improvement of the median along the frontage, he asked for clarification as to what would be required. Other than that, in general they agreed with the conditions. Mr. Gregg Holtz indicated that the median was already installed and stated that condition no. 12 involved the landscaping and lighting of the frontage of the project and median itself. He felt the applicant would want to improve the frontage and make the landscaping more desirable. Mr. Mainero asked to what extent it would have to be landscaped. Mr. Diaz stated that it would similar to the desert landscape theme that had been developed along Fred Waring and portions of Cook Street. The applicant ' s obligation would be half of ' 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 o.s that, so there would be a cost estimate and the applicant would pay half. When the south side developed, then they would pay the other half. Commissioner Richards noted that this was nothing new. Mr. Holtz indicated that regarding condition no. 19, they would require undergrounding of the overhead facilities. The cost might seem excessive, but was faced by any developer and they didn' t normally delete that requirement from conditions of approval . Mr. Diaz indicated the city council was the only body that could modify that condition. Mr. Holtz concurred. Commissioner powns asked about bonds; Mr. Diaz stated that they could join an assessment district and the city was looking at that, but noted there was division among staff about that issue. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the two story units and if the precise plan would have to come back to the commission. Mr. Diaz stated that any two story portion would have to come back and meet the two story standards. Commissioner powns asked about the provision of the 100 year storm retention; Mr. Mainero indicated the basin would be on the northeast corner of the site. „„r, Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the pro�ect. MR. MYRON MCLEOD, a property owner to the north, stated that he only learned about this pro�ect within the last 30 days. He felt the project looked nice, but also felt his pro�ect would not effect this one in a negative way. MR. GALE MESSICK, 935 Mountain Springs Lane in Glendora, stated that he had nothing against the pro�ect, it would be a good pro�ect. His concern was the fact that it backed up to his property which was zoned industrial. He noted there was very little setback on this property and asked if he would have to be the one to take a large setback when he was ready to build on the property next door. Mr. Diaz replied that the more intensive use was the one to provide the setback. This property had been zoned that since it was annexed, so he would have to provide the mitigation, but it could be done with the city' s development standards similar to that done on Cook Street. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz if he would be required to give up 50 feet or 100 feet. Mr. Diaz stated that he would not know until he �... 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � came in with a plan and the use. He stated that staff would work with him and would come up with something. He indicated that the obligation to provide mitigation was the industrial use. He suggested that Mr. Messick come in with a street system along there, noting that there was industrial across the street on Hovley from residential uses. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Mainero what he felt about a service industrial building there and what the height limitation would be. Mr. Diaz felt that commission would probably require the standards of the office professional zone in terms of building height because of the property zoned for residential . Within 60-100 feet they would be limited to one story and commission had always required that in the past. Beyond that they could go higher and the maximum height in the service industrial zone was 35 feet. Commissioner Richards noted that these were two existing zones and if Mr. Messick came in later, he wanted to know what Mr. Mainero could live with because something could be done now to help with mitigation. Mr. Mainero said that this site and all the land north of Gerald Ford dropped off dramatically and their site had 100 feet of fall across it, and in the worst case it would effect only some of the lower units on their site and with the � setbacks and building height restrictions, he did not feel it would be a problem. Commissioner powns noted that he walked the site and concurred that the property dropped at least 100 feet and if the industrial zone moved back 30-40 feet and would be 25 feet lower, they should not be able to see it over the fence. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was in favor of the pro�ect, but would vote against the project because he felt it would be irresponsible to add any more traffic onto the Monterey Interchange. If this pro,ject were conditioned upon completion of that improvement, that would be fine; otherwise it would be irresponsible to put in any more development because it was already an existing problem. Mr. Diaz stated that one concern was that if projects were not approved, the assessments and TUMF fee would not be collected to make the improvements. Commissioner Jonathan felt it would require property owners to get creative to find a solution. 16 �/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 .... Commissioner Richards stated that he did not like vast differences in zoning, but felt the combination of the factors and both parties present heard his reservations. He indicated that he did not want to hear them coming back in the future saying that they did not know what was being proposed. He did . not feel this was a good location for residential because of the blowing wind and the general area, but would vote in f avor. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 ( Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1566, approving TT 27055, subject to conditions. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . VIII. MISCELLANEOUS None. �.n. IX. ORAL COI�IUNICATIONS MR. MIKE OMAN addressed the commission regarding Case No. CUP 92-3. Commission informed him the item had been continued to their May 5, 1992 meeting and suggested that he be present then. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Richards noted that a meeting was held with property owners adjacent to the civic center. They were informed that the city' s current lights on the recreational facilities were bothering some of the residents of the Vineyard area. He said that he would recommend that staff hire a lighting consultant to look at what was done, look at the homes at night, and report back. Mr. Diaz indicated that one concern was the lights being on past 11:00 p.m. He stated that the lights would be set up to not allow them to be turned on then. He said that staff would look at the lights at the civic center, the driving range lights, and the baseball field ..� 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 � lights at C.O.D. and get a cost estimate. He felt that it would not be that expensive to solve the problems. Commissioner Richards stated that with the attitude of helping C.O.D. solve this problem, something could be done. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, instructing staff by minute motion to get a cost estimate for resolving the lighting problems at the civic center and C.O.D. Motion Carried 5-0. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adjourning the meeting to May 5, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned 8:44 p.m. RAM N A. DIAZ,• S c ary � ATTEST: ���'1�8�C� . CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 18 �