Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0519 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 19, 1992 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Bob Spiegel Members Absent: Bob Downs Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Kandy Allen Joe Gaugush Phil Drell Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Consideration of the May 5, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the May 5, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Richards abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent May 14 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP/CUP 90-1 - TRAVIS DEAL, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for a 10,000 square foot office building and associated parking lot and greenbelt located at 73-330 Highway 111 and 44-885 San Benito Circle. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. �' Carried 4-0 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 VII . PUBLIC HEARZNGS � A. Continued Case No. RV 91-5 - MR. ROBERT BARBOZA, Applicant Request for approval to park a trailer in the front yard area at 74-691 Candlewood Street. Mr. Diaz stated that the application before the commission was to park a trailer in the front yard area at 74-691 . He explained how the trailer would be screened. Staff recommended approval . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT BARBOZA, 74-691 Candlewood, stated that he was present to answer any questions. He explained that the trailer would be covered by a hedge that was approximately 34 feet from the curb back onto the property and was 22 feet long. Mr. Diaz noted that staff' s concern was the screening of the height. � Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present 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 Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1569, approving RV 91-5 subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. B. Continued Case No. CUP 92-2 and Draft Environmental Impact Report - 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 ballfields and corporate yard on the 2 �.rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 ,r„ 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 explained that this item had been continued for two weeks, but the public testimony portion was closed. He stated that a meeting was held on May 15 with representatives from Monterey Country Club, the Vineyards, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Palm Desert Youth Sports. He indicated that the plan before the commission was the same as at the last meeting. The plan contained four ballfields, 80 foot base pads and 250 foot base lines. He explained that this was not the normal full size baseball fields, which were 90 feet with deeper base �ines. He indicated that city corporate yard had been eliminated. A road would connect San Pablo to the area where the bacci ball was located and as a result of the meeting, the horseshoe pits wouZd be eliminated because of the noise. He indicated that in its place a picnic area would be developed. He said this was not the best plan from a planning standpoint. He recommended the addition of r„ the five conditions as outlined in the staff report. Staff felt this plan had come a long way and stated that the original plan presented to the commission could be placed on this parcel without a significant adverse environmental impact. He felt this plan addressed many of the concerns raised by residents during the public hearing. Chairperson Whitlock asked Mr. Diaz to address the winding road, particularly with the elimination of the horseshoe pit and the park area. Mr. Diaz noted that someone might ask why there was that kind of a winding road when there was a public street approximately 100 feet away and the response was that it was not effective planning, but political planning. He would have preferred the initial plan eliminating the city yard, with the addition of the date palm trees and activities with the bacci ball and picnic area with access taken from Magnesia Falls. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the shuffleboard had been eliminated; Mr. Diaz replied no. Chairperson Whitlock asked for a report from the Vineyards. ,.,., 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 MR. VIC VILLENEUVE, 43-349 #B Martini Court, thanked � Commissioner Jonathan and Commissioner powns for attending the working session last Friday. He stated that the Vineyards was still opposed to the installation of lighting, but not the ballfields. He indicated he appreciated Mr. Diaz ' s understanding on other specific topics. He indicated that he wanted to be on record as opposing the lighting. ' Commissioner Spiegel asked if he was opposed to the College of the Desert lighting or the baseball field lighting. Mr. Villeneuve replied primarily the baseball field lighting, but was also speaking about the cumulative effect of all the lighting from C.O.D. , as well as the city' s proposal and the existing civic center lighting for the volleyball, tennis courts and basketball courts. He felt the cumulative effect of all the lighting plus the additional ballfield lighting would be a problem. He noted that the City of Palm Desert had no connection with the installation of the lights at the driving range, but he stated that it had been a long battle for them and they had received no satisfaction. He stated that he did not have any faith that the city would do any better of a .� �b at monitoring the lighting than COD, who had made � several promises to them over the past six years. He said that an example of this was a condition that the lights would turn off at 8:00 p.m. and now they go off after 9 :00 p.m. Mr. Diaz asked who promised the lights would be off at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Villeneuve replied that it was Dr. George four years ago. Mr. Villeneuve stated that he was not convinced the city could do a better �ob. Commissioner Richards disagreed and pointed out that what the College of the Desert did was totally separate from the city. Mr. Villeneuve indicated that in 1986 he attended the board meeting to let them know about the problem and also met with Dr. George personally and promises were made to them that something would be done about the lighting. He said that initially they were stonewalled similar to what the city was doing. He felt the City of Palm Desert could have learned something from their opposition or problem with the lighting at the College of the Desert 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 ,� over the years. He indicated that he came before the city council, met with council members, Carlos Ortega, and Bruce Altman and informed them the city would be making a mistake if they didn' t bring the surrounding neighbors of the park into the planning process. He felt that if they weren' t brought into the planning process and the city was not sensitive to their needs, then they would be at city hall complaining as they were now. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not agree with the assessment that the planning commission' s review of an EIR for the proposed development should be put into the same focus as something that occurred in 1986 with a board the city had nothing to do with. He indicated that he directed staff to allow Mr. Villeneuve to meet with the lighting engineer to discuss the problems. He asked if that had occurred. Mr. Villeneuve replied no. Mr. Diaz stated that they had not met with the lighting engineer, but there was a slight difference between this project and the golf course lights at the college. Mr. Diaz said that the conditions of approval called for them to: 1 ) look at it for analysis; 2 ) the fact that there was a public � hearing showed something was being done a little differently than other political institutions in the valley; 3 ) there was a plan with standards established that had to be met by that plan to insure the lights would not overflow; 4) there was a plan showing what the lighting increase would be; and 5 ) there was a condition of approval authorizing the expenditure of $20, 000 for after the study was done to correct the deficiencies that might occur at the baseball fields and for the driving range lights. Commissioner Richards stated that at the last meeting he attended he requested that staff and the Iighting engineer meet with Mr. Villeneuve and his neighbors to address the concerns about the current problems and potential new problems. Mr. Diaz indicated that as far as the projects the city had just completed, the lighting engineer for the ballfields was not involved in those; the problem was the time period the lights were on and those lights were supposed to be off at 10:00 p.m. He requested that people call and let him know if the lights were not off. He said that as far as the lighting source was concerned, the study was there and these lights before the commission would not increase the problem in that area and the $20, 000 was to solve the problem that existed now. Commissioner Richards stated that his concern ,�, 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 was that he told Mr. Villeneuve that when he expressed concern ,� about lights that were currently in existence that were put there for the purpose of volleyball, tennis and/or basketball, there would be someone to review not only the hours, but how the lights were affecting the Vineyards area. Mr. Diaz felt that had been done and indicated that screens were put on the lights. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Villeneuve if he had any conversations with the lighting engineer; Mr. Villeneuve ' replied no. Commissioner Richards assured him that particular ' question was something that he was concerned with. Mr. Villeneuve had indicated that from his home while the lights were on it effected the quality of his life. Mr. Villeneuve also indicated that the volleyball lights were better and had been shielded or hooded; as far as a time limit, he did not think there was one and last Sunday the lights were on all night until 6:00 a.m. Mr. Diaz stated that those lights were supposed to be turned off at 10:00 p.m. and recommended a condition of approval stating that. Mr. Villeneuve said that this was an example of what he was talking about. The volleyball lights had nothing to do with the proposed plan, but if the city couldn' t even get them right, he was not convinced they would do the ballfields right. He said that he had not spoken to anyone and no one had come to his home as Commissioner � Richards suggested. Commissioner Richards stated that he appreciated Mr. Villeneuve ' s comments, but felt that he could be assured that a lighting engineer would be visiting Mr. Villeneuve within the next two weeks and he said that he would specifically request a report that dealt with real things: how much light was really visible from his home; what it would take to change some of those things and be a neighborly compatible park. He apologized that it had not been done yet. He said it wasn' t really involved in this but he would make it part of the record that the city would do the best it could. Mr. Villeneuve accepted the apology but indicated that he had lived in his home for nine years and did not want to keep coming down to the city to accept apologies for promises that were not kept. Mr. Diaz stated that the conditions on the timing of the volleyball lights turning off at 10:00 p.m. would be done prior to any development on phase III. 6 ,� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 � Commissioner Richards indicated that he wasn' t sure there was a problem but wanted to send someone out there to assess the situation that was a qualified lighting engineer and he would report back to the commission with his findings and any solutions if needed. He stated that as to the College of the Desert, the city has little to do with what they say. Mr. Villeneuve disagreed and noted that two members of the city council were associated with the College of the Desert. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he was on the Foundation at the College of the Desert and he had no control over the money being spent. Mr. Villeneuve asked who was responsible and who should be addressed with these issues. Commissioner Spiegel replied Dr. George, the person who made all the promises. Mr. Villeneuve indicated he was not trying to transfer that issue over to the city, he was only trying to explain from a historical perspective what the problems had been with sports facility lighting. It had been very � frustrating to meet with boards and people who were in control and in charge and expect them to understand it from the point of view of an ordinary citizen who lived in a home adjacent to that type of activity. He stated that he and his neighbors were unconvinced that the proposed measures for the sports field lighting for the ballfields would be any different. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he understood why he would have that feeling after nine years, but did not want him to make the mistake of lumping every governmental agency into the same basket. He felt the difference between the school district and the City of Palm Desert was that Mr. Villeneuve was part of the city. The school district was an autonomous entity and they did what they wanted and were not necessarily sensitive or quick to act upon concerns of residents. Palm Desert and the Planning Commission was the exact opposite. If a problem occurred, Mr. Villeneuve would have the right to come to every meeting and explain the problem. He asked the city attorney about any precedent regarding light spilling over into our city and residents being effected in an almost physical sense by something they were doing and if we would have some control over what they were doing. ... � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 Ms. Allen replied that the city did not have control in a � regulatory sense, but there would be a cause of action potentially for a nuisance. Commissioner Jonathan said that if Mr. Villeneuve found something in his dealings with the college that the city could participate in on his side on, he felt there would be a willingness to doing that. Commissioner Spiegel indicated that he felt that since it was a money making situation with the driving range, that the same laws that prevailed with the swap meet would prevail with the driving range. Mr. Diaz stated that he was assured by Mr. G. Allen Smith that the lights in the volleyball court area and basketball area did turn off at 10:00 p.m. He indicated no calls of complaint had been received. He said that if there were problems, the public needed to let staff know. He again stated that there was a condition of approval calling for $20, 000 to take care of the college and baseball field lights. He said that the college came to the city with the swap meet and that could be looked into. He felt that if this proceeded tonight, based on his information the condition of approval would take care of the shining of the lights. He stated that the College of the Desert Board of Trustees was a separately elected board and the fact that satisfaction could not be � gained there did not mean the City of Palm Desert was automatically at fault. The condition of approval said that it would be looked at and they would try to do something about it. He recommended that Mr. Villeneuve continue to work with the college if they promised the lights off at 8:00 p.m. and didn't do it. He said that Commissioner Spiegel ' s request would also be looked into. Commissioner Richards stated that he officially requested at the next hearing that commission get a report from a lighting engineer that indicated he spent some time looking into Mr. Villeneuve ' s problems. Mr. Diaz said that the city has a contract and would have it. Mr. Villeneuve thanked Commissioner Jonathan for his empathy and stated that he had not lost his faith in government institutions nor in the City of Palm Desert or the Planning Commission, but believed in results. He had not seen any results in his dealings with the College of the Desert. He said that in 1987 he came to the Palm Desert City Council and requested that the same investigation into the legal action just requested of the city attorney be done and indicated there was more 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 � discussion on the college lights tonight than in the past five years. He noted there was a condition for periodic review that was supposed to take care of any complaints they had; his arguments up to now had not been persuasive. He stated that he believed in results and wanted to know if that meant if in six months from now if he came down to city hall and said the lights were on all night, he would get the same empathy and understanding and apologies. Commissioner Richards noted that a lighting study had been ordered and when it came back, if it said that Mr. Villeneuve' s welfare was being threatened, something would be done. Commissioner Spiegel noted that Mr. Villeneuve mentioned that corrective measures were taken for the volleyball lights. Mr. Villeneuve stated that they were taken, but not necessarily voluntarily. He felt it was in response to a letter written to the city council . Commissioner Spiegel felt that Mr. Villeneuve had stated that nothing had been done, but this showed things were being done. ''" Mr. Villeneuve stated that he was not saying nothing had been done and was not accusing anyone of anything. He felt the sensitivity had not been there and did not have faith in some of the proposed measures. He said that it took three planning commission meetings and two working meetings to get as far as they had gone. Commission Jonathan felt that in the short time the planning commission had dealt with these issues a lot had been done: the volleyball lights had been revised; horseshoe pits were deleted; lighting had been revised in that area; and berming and landscaping had been included. He hoped that Mr. Villeneuve would open his mind to the fact that the planning commission did listen and respond, although not necessarily completely to his satisfaction, but what they felt was fair for everyone. Mr. Villeneuve stated that he was not asking for any specific construction of anything, just for the city to plan this park in a manner that was sensitive to his home. He stated for the record that he was opposed to the installation of the ballfield lights. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 MR. WAYNE GURALNICK addressed the commission representing � the Monterey Country Club and said that they did meet and felt some small progress had been made regarding Monterey Country Club. He felt that what was being proposed to go in could not be fixed. Monterey Country Club was in opposition because the fields were too close. They needed to be pushed back 200-300 feet. He said there were two issues concerning Monterey: visual impact and noise impact. He stated that the city had tried, and they had heard representation from a lighting manufacturer in regards to the lights being okay, but there had not been anything dealing with the noise. There was one person who had gone ahead with a noise study and he said it would be at the maximum acceptable level and had not addressed how it would be set up. Commissioner Richards asked how many houses were affected; he noted that on the closest street, almost every house on that street had a garage facing this area and there were very few front windows facing this area. He felt that noise and lighting had been studied. He said that walking down the street adjoining Magnesia Falls, if the lights were right next to the wall, how many houses would be visually effected compared to the 1200 homes in the complex. There was a street that ad,joined it, a fairway behind it, etc. He said they were � 500-600 feet away. Mr. Guralnick said that their concerns were the noise and lights and he suggested that they could be mitigated by moving the ballfields back. In the course of these hearings, the tennis courts had been mostly installed, but that did not mean the ballfields could not be pushed south and if necessary one ballfield deleted. He also felt the tennis courts could be removed. During this whole process he felt Mr. Diaz had been "dead set" against moving it and did not feel alternative plans had been seen as to moving the ballfields back. All they had seen was window dressing in regard to what was being presented. Commissioner Richards disagreed, noting that the corporate yard had been deleted; the use of the road was removed; the parking was moved; money was put in to fix the lights on the fields that were not the city' s; dropping the fields down; and adding palm trees. This was not window dressing. Commissioner Spiegel also noted the lights would turn off at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Richards felt that substantial efforts had been made to mediate the problems. 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 � Commissioner Jonathan stated that one result of the meetings because of noise was the dropping of the field three feet and they were planning to berm the outfield to create more of a cushion against the noise; he indicated that most spectators sit around the infield area, which was by Mr. Folkers calculations 500-560 feet from the closest home. He asked if those things together had made any impact on Mr. Guralnick' s concern about the noise. Mr. Guralnick stated that in direct response to that they have no empirical evidence that it did or didn' t have an impact; he asked why they could not have an acoustical expert out there to create the kinds of noise generated by a ballfield. Mr. Diaz noted that a noise study was done and was contained within the environmental impact report which indicated that the only reason the facility might not reach the present city noise standards was because Magnesia Falls was not put through, if Magnesia Falls went through the noise level of the traffic of Magnesia Falls would take care of any noise generated by the facility and the main noise generated by the facility were not children playing or parents cheering, but automobile noise and the mitigation measures suggested in the � EIR were part and parcel of the conditions of approval and showed there would not be significant adverse impact, even for the original plan. This evidence showed that the project would not have a significant adverse impact. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that if the original plan was within acceptable limits then the added mitigation measures of dropping the fields, berming the outfield, and putting in date trees could only help. He felt the situation had been improved. Regarding the ballfields, he felt that deletion of one of the ballfields would be unacceptable to the ones that need the fields and would also have the same effect that moving any of the ballfields would have and that would be to eliminate one of the soccer fields. He noted that one of the items that came up at the meeting was that by having the present configuration the outfields could be used to accommodate two soccer fields. He also noted that in Monterey' s suggested configuration, that would move the ballfields east and closer to the vineyards. Mr. Guralnick stated that they objected because they had never even had the option of moving the ballfields in different locations. He said they would like to consider other locations in the civic center. He felt there were �.r 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 reasonable alternatives and the draft EIR was fatally rl defective as per his March 13 correspondence. He stated that when the commission said there were no feasible alternatives, they must detail the reasons for the rejection if not also within the draft EIR. He indicated that the basic comments per the meeting beyond moving it south were that Magnesia Falls should be vacated or that process put in place to facilitate it. The access road was an unnecessary expense and would add noise to that area when it could be reached from the parking lot from the south and east. Additional conditions would be that there would not have a speaker system. Other concerns were the height of the palm trees and that they be mature palms to provide less of a visual impact. Mr. Diaz asked for the record what Mr. Guralnick' s definition of a mature date palm tree was; Mr. Guralnick replied that he did not have a definition. Commissioner Richards noted that one member of the council was concerned about the date palm grove and it was something that was a subject by itself and a group was handling that and was not a subject the planning commission should get involved with because it covered ground others were already studying. Mr. Diaz indicated that in the date palm industry trees from 18 � feet in height to approximately 25 feet in height were considered the "cows" because they were the ones to bear the most fruit and could be cultivated. Mr. Guralnick stated that 18 feet to 25 feet was acceptable--the higher the better. He noted that Mr. Folkers was going to have some interspersal of other trees, maybe not within the date grove itself, but on the circumference and would be California Peppers or some other type of trees. They would also like a condition for children only to use the ballfields, no adults. He stated that everyone had heard about children needing to get home early and he felt the lights should be turned off at 9:00 p.m. MR. MARC HOMME, representing Desert Sports, stated that when people bought in Monterey Country Club along that street, there was a dedicated street on the general plan that was to go through called Magnesia Falls Road. He did not know what would happen with Magnesia Falls Road, but he felt the planning commission knew it was not a popular concept with Monterey residents. He felt it was unfortunate it had been such a major factor in 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 r.► negotiations relative to the ballfields because it had nothing to do with the fields, particularly since Mr. Diaz agreed not to put San Pablo through to Magnesia Falls Road. Mr. Diaz clarified that he agreed to recommended that. Mr. Homme indicated that at the initial meetings he had with Monterey Country Club, their main ob�ection was the corporate yard and that was extremely offensive. That was eliminated and the lights were shown to be ameliorated as a ma�or concern. He felt the commission had done a lot. He also suggested that between the date trees on the perimeters on both sides there should be some other type of hedge that would be dense foliage i.e. tamarisk, oleanders, or one of those type of hedges that would provide the density that could shield, rather then just having the date trees. He felt this would have a significant effect. He indicated there were hundreds of families and children that needed these fields. He had been involved in the issue of developing fields for years. He said that he had worked with Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage for years. The fields needed to be done now. Government had the overriding responsibility to the general welfare of its citizenry and no general welfare �` was more important than the welfare of the youth of the community. It was not enough to say that they could build the fields in another place; this park was planned to be developed and the plan was reasonable. After the vote tonight, he hoped the commission would enthusiastically move forward with this program as quickly as possible because there was an urgent need. He thanked the commission and staff for their commitment and support. MR. DANIEL BARNES, 41-613 Aventine Court in Palm Desert, stated that he had been a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission for over three years and said that he was involved in the park from the very beginning. He indicated that the park was not put together in a helter- skelter way and there was a lot of planning that went into it, a lot of ineetings were held and a lot of discussion took place. Many of the things being addressed now were brought up before planning commission and city council and they had discussed many kinds of ballfields before. Everyone wanted ballfields and felt the children should have ballfields, but nobody wanted the fields next to them. Many places were considered and � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 some were turned down because they were not ecologically � a good place; others were given up because there were complaints about the location. This park was put together with a lot of forethought and he felt it would be one of the finest parks in the s�ate once it was completed. The fields were not just put out there to annoy people from the Vineyards or Monterey Country Club. They were put there because that was the place where they fit best for the overall park plan. The tennis courts were put in their location for a good reason like everything else in the park. He stated there were other things that still had to go into the park; maybe not this year or next year, but they were planned to be there i.e. an aquatic center and possibly the library. He was in favor of the way this had been handled and felt a lot of concessions were made and most of the complaints had been addressed by the EIR and the plan and should stand as it was. He felt the fields should be completed as soon as possible. Chairperson Whitlock opened the discussion to the planning commission. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was at the May 15 meeting. There was some consensus that the community needed � ballfields. From a larger planning perspective it would be inappropriate not to provide a venue to the youth of the community for physical activity. It was felt to be a detriment not only to the youths themselves, but all members of the community because if the youth was not involved in sports or some other type of activity, they were typically involved in things that they should not be involved in. He said the discussion did not seem to center on ballfields, it seemed to center on mitigating the adverse impact of the ballfields. He felt that as a direct result of the meeting the following revisions were recommended to be put in place: 1 ) removal of the horseshoe pits and replaced by passive activity such as picnic or gazebo; 2 ) baseball fields would be dropped down three feet and the outfield would be bermed and mounds up beyond that which would have a significant impact on reducing the noise level; 3 ) lights would be turned off at 10:00 p.m. and if problems occur, that was up for review; and 4) a mandatory review period. The corporate yard was removed, the date trees were added, $20, 000 was allocated to look at this park and the College of the Desert lights, and Magnesia Falls Drive was being gated off from any traffic. 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 „� Mr. Gaugush felt this item would have to be decided by city council since it was an existing public thoroughfare. Mr. Diaz stated that instead of terminating it at the San Pascual Channel it would just be moved up to the entrance. Mr. Gaugush stated that this would prohibit access to a designated public thoroughfare and believed this would have to be done with a hearing before council . Mr. Diaz indicated that this was a mitigation measure as part of the environmental impact report. He said that if some day the street were ever open and there was a bridge, fine, but what difference would it make if cars stopped now at the entrance or before the San Pascual Channel . Commissioner Jonathan also recommended a condition that no loud speaker system be permitted. He also felt there had been a compromise to have mature date palm trees provided; if there was a problem from the date palm industry, they should come back to the commission. He said that the trees should be an effective mitigation measure, as well as a preserve. He concluded that there was consensus that a ballfield was needed; they tried to deal with potential problems that might be created and he felt that they had dealt very effectively with everyone and reached a more than reasonable compromise. He stated that he would move for approval of the findings as .... revised. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Spiegel . Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Barnes if the loud speakers were needed for the sports organizations; Mr. Barnes stated that he did not feel a speaker system was needed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there were eight fields at the high school and they did not have a system there; he also indicated that at the May 15 meeting the sports representatives did not have a problem with deleting the loud speakers. Commissioner Richards asked about the semi-annual review and requested that when it was put on the agenda, it should include the interested parties who were at the meetings and they should be notified. Mr. Diaz concurred and stated that it would be a noticed public review. Commissioner Jonathan amended his motion to include that. Commissioner Richards noted that when the date grove was installed, the purpose would be to have a working date grove, not �ust to add old trees that people wanted the city to have. He said there was a group that dealt with date groves actively ,,,,,�, 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 and felt that the 18 to 25 feet would be acceptable. He said � that with those minor recommendations, he was in favor. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1570, certifying an environmental impact report for a project commonly referred to as Conditional Use Permit 92-2 as meeting the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1571, approving CUP 92-2 for the development of Phase III of the Civic Center Park, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. CHAIRPERSON WHITLOCK CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 8: 15 P.M. � C. Continued Case No. PP 92-2 - D & F DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan for a 23 unit single family development on 2. 5 acres within the R-2 zone at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Drell explained that the pro�ect was now 22 units, not 23, and at the last meeting commission was concerned about the location of the two story windows. The windows facing a private side or rear yard would be raised to a sill height of 5 feet 8 inches to prevent anyone from peering down. He reiterated that this zone was designed for two story apartment units and the proposal was unique in that the density was reduced from 27 to 22 and allowed private yards. He said that the units would be 125 feet away from the single family zone. Staff recommended approval . 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if � the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. FRANZ TIERRE stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the pubic testimony was closed. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he was in favor of the project at the last meeting because any windows effecting homes were in the construction area and not the perimeter. He said that he was satisfied. Chairperson Whitlock indicated she also would have voted for the project as originally presented, but was delighted with the changes that were made. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was pleased with the changes that were made and felt they adequately addressed his concerns. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Chairperson � Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1572, approving PP 92-2, sub�ect to conditions. Carried 4-0. D. Continued Case No. PM 27463 - RK DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval subdivision of a 6. 57 acre parcel into four lots located south of Green Way/Sego Lane and east of Beacon Hill. Mr. Diaz noted that the applicant was requesting a 30 day continuance to June 16, 1992. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. .�.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 Action: � Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing PM 27463 to June 16, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. E. Case No. CUP 92-5 - BURTON L. KAPLAN, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of 48 storage units totalling 24, 000 square feet at 74-850 Merle Drive ( ingress/egress from Joni Drive ) . Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report. He said that it would not be visible from any public right of way. He indicated that the area was currently used as an outside storage area and access would be provided via the existing ingress/egress for Palm Desert Self Storage on Joni Drive. No additional access was requested or required. He noted that the project received preliminary architectural commission approval . He stated they would be upgrading the entrance and Merle Drive landscaping. He indicated that the fire marshal agreed to the proposal with one added condition that any turn radius for fire equipment on the site should be �, approved by the fire marshal and if the site was unable to meet this requirement, other mitigating measures would be required. Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BURT KAPLAN stated that they were improving the entrance and had a waterfall that deteriorated and it would be removed and replaced with desert landscaping. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. CAL HUTCHISON, 74-911 Joni Drive, on the board of directors for the Major Development Industrial Association. He asked where the access would be since the applicant had been using the ingress/egress through his back drive on his unit and through the lot they leased for parking that they maintained to comply with county code. He asked if that would be used as the access. Mr. Kaplan indicated that they basically used the Joni Drive entrance/exit, but did have an easement and a right � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 ,,,� to use it. He stated that he owned the property in question and leased it to Mr. Hutchison so that they could over-build the property. He said he obtained an easement from Major Development and that property was a portion of the CVWD abandoned well site that he also purchased and had an easement through. He indicated that they try not to use that easement area except when they have a motor home that was so large that it couldn' t get up the ramp, it was then allowed to come through that area. Mr. Hutchison informed commission that they have had problems with u-hauls and semis parking there and loading/unloading. He was concerned about the heavy trucks using that area because their cement pads were deteriorating. Mr. Diaz felt this was a civil matter and the right-of-way and easement were private matters and suggested the gentlemen get together and work this out. He said that the plan was what was before the commission. Mr. Hutchison stated that they were not sure where the ingress/egress would be. ... Mr. Diaz said they would be in the same place as now. Mr. Hutchison indicated they would oppose the project if the access was through their property. Mr. Diaz stated that if the easement was legal or illegal was up to them to work out--the planning commission could not decide that issue. Mr. Hutchison informed commission that they just formed a new association and wanted to address the current problems with Mr. Kaplan, but this issue came up first. He was concerned about the increased traffic and the u- hauls. Mr. Winklepleck noted that this was a conditional use permit and could be brought back for discussion at any time. MS. JUANITA MCCLELLAN, owner of the McClellan building on Joni Drive, stated that Joni Drive already had so much traffic on it now that a person took their life in their own hands driving there. She felt that any additional traffic and u-hauls was too much. She indicated that ingress/egress should be eliminated on Joni Drive. She v.� 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 stated that something should be done about the traffic �rr problem. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards asked public works about the problem on Joni Drive with the parking and traffic. He said that large 25 foot trucks were parking perpendicular to the road and that made it difficult for the people like the McClellans with the access into and out of their driveways--he indicated that cars now have to drive in the center lane or other lanes just to get around these large trucks. He felt the city should talk to the businesses and come up with a remedy to make it safe. He requested that public works look into that and report back. Mr. Gaugush indicated that there had been a number of things going on in the industrial area, but when dealing with issues of public safety with respect to the vehicles, it was a valid issue that needed to be addressed. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he shared the concerns expressed by Ms. McClellan and Commissioner Richards. He felt the applicant had a right to develop his property as presented because it was within the guidelines and that area was a warehouse industrial zone. He did not feel it would be proper � to hold up this application, but wanted to see those issues addressed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1573, approving CUP 92-5, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. F. Case Nos. C/Z 92-2 and PP 92-3 - BARCON DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from multifamily residential (R-3 ) to office professional (O.P. ) and approval of a precise plan for design of a two story 5, 001 net square foot office building at the northwest corner of Portola and Alessandro. The application was withdrawn by the applicant. nrr 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1992 ,� Action: No further commission action was necessary. VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Richards stated that the street sign at Cahuilla and Highway 74 had been down a long time and he would like it put up as soon as possible. Mr. Gaugush noted the request. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner ` Richards, adjourning the meeting to June 2, 1992 by minute motion. Motion Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. . RAM N A. DI Z, cr ary ATTEST: �'Z��(.�-�j . CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm � 21