Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0804 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 4, 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 : 00 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 Members Absent: Bob Spiegel Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe Phil Joy IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 21, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the July 21, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Chairperson Whitlock noted there had not been a council meeting since the last planning commission meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 24984 - SUNLITE DEVELOPMENT INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a one year time extension for later phases of a 105 lot single family subdivision located on the west side of Deep Canyon Road, 300 feet south of Fred Waring Drive. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 B. Case No. TT 26412 - HOUSLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. , Applicant rr.r Request for a first one-year time extension for a five lot subdivision north of Crosby Lane, 225 feet east of Della Robbia Lane. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 92-7 - SACRED HEART CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a conditional use permit to allow construction of a new school/ administration building and new parking lot at 43-775 Deep Canyon Drive. low Mr. Diaz explained that this matter was continued because of the concern raised by a proposed staff condition based on some of the testimony heard that there would not be any further expansion of the school into the La Paz community area for 25 years . The matter was continued to receive clarification. Since that meeting, he spoke with a Mr. Lemann who was with the law firm that represents the Diocese of San Bernardino, and Mr. Lemann stated that the Diocese did not intend to expand any further into the La Paz area and if they did, they would assist in relocating any residents in the area similar to what was done previously. Mr. Diaz stated to Mr. Lemann that it would be nice if some representative from the Diocese could be at the meeting to say that as part of the public record and to give commission and the residents the assurance that would happen. He asked if anyone was present representing the Diocese; there was no response. He felt that everyone was after the same thing; the best possible parish situation and insure that the current residents were not disrupted. Commissioner Downs noted that in the letter from the attorney dated July 29 it said that five to ten years was the time frame. He suggested conditioning it ten years . Mr. Diaz said 2 "/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 that he would not have a problem with the ten years and the residents would have the understanding that any expansion would have to come to the planning commission for hearing. Commissioner Downs stated that he would like a condition that if they plan any expansion in less then ten years, they would come to the commission for a public hearing prior to an expansion plan and with a proposal on how they would take care of the impacted residents. Staff concurred. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MS. HANNIGAN, a resident in La Paz, stated that they were all anxious to get a school built because it was important for good education for the future. MR. CHRIS MILLS, project architect, 121 S. Palm Canyon Drive in Palm Springs, stated that he was present to answer any questions . He hoped the letter addressed the concerns that the commission had at the last meeting. He informed commission that he was handed a letter when he walked in and read it for the record (see attached Exhibit A) . He noted that the letter was signed by 14 residents in opposition to the gate. Commissioner Richards asked about the applicant' s position on the gate. Commissioner Downs noted that the gate was moved to the area with 25 ' between buildings . Chairperson Whitlock reminded commission that one resident at the last meeting wanted the gate. Commissioner Downs indicated that was something that could be worked out at staff level with the architect. Mr. Diaz stated that he would recommend that the subject of the gate would be determined by staff. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she thought the wall was an interior wall between the residents and the church/school yard, not on Deep Canyon as referred to in the letter. Mr. Mills stated that the gate would be on the parallel wall to Deep Canyon, but there would be a separating masonry wall between the school and the apartments . Mr. Diaz indicated that what they were trying to achieve was some kind of direct access from the La Paz area to the church so people would not have to go all the way around. Commissioner Downs suggested the installation of a sidewalk. Mr. Mills stated that they would be willing to work that out with staff. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. �..' 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 MR. CHARLES DILLING, La Paz resident, stated that he felt the gate destroyed the privacy and their security. He indicated that everyone except one person was against the gate. He said that it was not a direct entry to the church like there was now, but would go to the outside. He felt it was an invasion of his privacy because he uses his backyard and patio and the gate would come right up to his patio. He clarified that it was not an access to the church, but an access to the street. Chairperson Whitlock asked Mr. Dilling if he signed the petition; he replied yes . MS . EMILY KANDER, resident next door to Mr. Dilling, also felt the gate would be an invasion of her privacy and was sure that the gate could be located where people could go around; she noted that it was good exercise. MR. ALAN FRAZIER, retired parishner, stated that he felt the discussion about the gate was a petty item at this point and indicated that they had already partially agreed to work this out between staff and the architect. He felt time was being wasted to consider any further comments on this . .rr Commissioner Downs informed the audience that this was an open forum and anyone was allowed to speak and if they wanted to continue to talk about this issue, they were still allowed to do so. Mr. Dilling informed commission that they were completely at the behest parish; whatever they wanted to do they would. Commissioner Richards clarified that when staff indicated they would work this out and they would take responsibility for this, he assured Mr. Dilling that staff would not put a gate in his backyard or anyone else' s unless it was agreed upon by the parties involved. MR. EDWARD PEREZ, 43-800 Florine in Palm Desert, asked what a negative declaration of environmental impact meant. Commissioner Richards stated that it says that anything that anyone will do will not impact anyone. In essence it was an examination of conditions before a project of what proposed 4 '' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 tow aberrations would occur and examining the effects after a project was built. Mr. Diaz indicated that a negative declaration meant that the use as approved with the conditions placed on it would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The project before commission related to the school; if there were problems with cars and traffic on Sundays, particularly on Easter Sunday and Christmas, these were traffic situations not part of this project. That did not mean the city ignored them, but residents should let the city know when there was a problem so that it could be addressed. Mr. Perez felt that it was part of the project because they were expanding their parking. Mr. Diaz replied that the expanded parking was to handle the parishners that were there. He felt that would be a mitigation measure on the environmental impact because of the people coming to church and if there was no parking there, they would park somewhere else and that someplace else would be on the street and it would not be Fred Waring. He confirmed there would be more cars parked on the site, but that was to accommodate more of the parishners as a result of .. the city' s expansion and increase in population of the parish. He said that with the expansion of the school they were also providing additional parking for the parishners . He felt that services would also probably be increased. Mr. Perez stated that at the last meeting it was indicated that no automobile access would be allowed on Florine. Mr. Mills concurred that there would not be any access onto Florine. Mr. Perez asked about a pedestrian access . Mr. Diaz responded that there wasn't a pedestrian access point at this time and that could be worked out with staff . He asked if Mr. Perez would object to a pedestrian access . Mr. Perez replied not really, but he did not want it right next to his driveway. Mr. Diaz noted that if there was a pedestrian access point here, people would park in his street during Christmas and Easter. '..' 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 Mr. Perez stated that was not a problem because there was .rrri plenty of parking available on the street. He said that he did not object to the pedestrian access as long as it was not next to his driveway. Mr. Diaz indicated that the pedestrian access on Florine could be conditioned that it would be designed in such a manner that it would be no closer than 250 ' to the closest residence. Mr. Perez said that was fine. Mr. Mills said the parish decided they did not want a pedestrian access on Florine at all . Commissioner Jonathan commented on the concern about the traffic from the church use. He indicated that churches come in under a conditional use permit which meant that if there was any problem, anyone could come to the city and alert them to the problem if they were aware of one. He felt that staff would be responsive and would try to improve the situation. Commissioner Richards indicated that the issue should be more of a hazardous condition, rather than an inconvenient one. He said that if it involved safety, that was important to let the city know about. low MS. RACHAEL KAY, La Paz resident in #8B, spoke in favor of the gate. She felt that people living in La Paz should have access and did not feel it would make that much noise. She said that her unit was on the right side of the project and they needed that access . Mr. Diaz noted that commission was going to have this worked out at the staff level and suggested that since Ms . Kay wanted the gate and others didn't, perhaps it could be located next to her unit for her convenience and would not impact the others that did not want it, all of which could be worked out at staff level . Chairperson Whitlock noted that was a positive solution and informed Mrs . Kay that staff was willing to work with her on this . Mrs . Kay felt that another location would better to build the school and that would allow them to have a beautiful school and still keep the six units for the senior housing and they could retain the quiet place they have and allow the school to have a better place for parking 6 r rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ?AUGUST 4, 1992 cars and it would reduce the traf f is. She asked why they couldn't relocate it somewhere else. Chairperson Whitlock suggested that it was probably because they might not own that other piece of land. Mrs . Kay commented that she still felt it would be a good place for a school in another location. MS . ANGELA QUINTINELLO, 43-455 Deep Canyon, informed commission that she was in agreement with the plans for the school and did not see a problem. She felt this was a good location for it and said that children should not be out in the street. She noted that Sacred Heart had a building fund and felt that Palm Desert needed a Catholic school and that it would benefit the community. She stated that they were happy to live there and noted that they were renters, not homeowners . She indicated that where people want the gate would be fine with her and liked the way the architect planned it. She felt that with the Coachella Valley having so many young people and families, it was nice that they have more children in services on Sundays and they needed this school . She noted that they would adding another grade level this r... year and planned on adding another next year. She said that people who had contributed money were anxious and waiting for the school . She also stated that she spoke for a lot of residents in the complex that were in favor of the project. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Downs felt that with the amendments the conditional use was acceptable. The ten years on the expansion program; staff discussing with them the placement of the gate; and closing the pedestrian access on Florine. Commissioner Richards noted that there was discussion at the last meeting about the need for some certainty and perhaps the Diocese and the city could get together to form some sort of reassurance in the form of a letter. He felt something should be added to the existing resident' s leases if they have them and added to anyone new coming into their complex that there was an acknowledgement that the Diocese and the city have put a ten year moratorium on any further development or demolition of those units and that if the units were to be moved or changed, it had to be within the full agreement of the .r 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 residents there at that time. Mr. Diaz indicated that was no "W problem. Commissioner Richards stated that with that amendment and the amendment of the gate being worked out to the satisfaction of the arbitrator, Mr. Diaz or his staff, he felt it could be approved. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1583, approving CUP 92-7 , subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . B. Continued Case No. ZOA 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a resolution recommending to city council an amendment to the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance Title 25, Chapter 25 .58 and Chapter 25 . 76, changing the parking standards in the industrial zone. Mr. Diaz explained that this matter had been continued from the last meeting. He stated that staff sought to create the 1 space for every 250 square feet of leasable area requirement for the industrial zone, similar to the other commercial zones . He indicated that leasable area was defined as taking gross floor area and subtracting 15% and taking 1 per 250 square feet for the rest. He said that the 15% represented corridors, restrooms and common areas. Mr. Diaz noted that with the second provision, the city attorney corrected him that with the current wording, it would prohibit anyone doing anything in that zone once they lose the present use. He clarified that he was attempting to avoid a situation where if a person was developed under standards that were less than the 1 per 500 square feet, and in some instances there were legal non-conforming uses in the county that were developed 1 per 800-1000, and yet they had a use in there that was a normal retail or office use that had a 1 per 250 or 200 square foot parking requirement. Once that tenant was gone, they could only replace it with an industrial use that had a 1 per 400 square foot parking ratio. He said that the reason for the 1 per 400 square feet was that he did not think anyone would 8 aw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 argue that automobile repair belonged in the industrial zone and automobile repair under the current Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance had a 1 per 400 parking ratio. He indicated that would allow a furniture store at 1 per 500, any industrial use at 1 per 500, but they could not bring in another retail use. He stated this was only if the parking ratio they had was less than 1 per 500; if there was 1 per 500 and a retail use was lost, the retail use could be replaced there within six months . He said that if commission agreed with the intent, staff would reword the ordinance to reflect that intent. He indicated that the current wording made all the industrial uses 1 per 250 so that when someone loses an industrial use and they have less than 1 per 1000 they have a vacant building, which was not staffs intent. He stated that he would work with the city attorney to work out the wording. Staff felt the commission could proceed with the item with the understanding that it would be changed. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to see the correct wording. He indicated that he wanted to make sure of what was being decided. He noted that no one was present in the audience on this issue. Mr. Diaz stated that the reason no one was at the meeting was because the procedure for processing a zoning ordinance amendment did not require ■.. notices to be mailed. He indicated that if the commission wanted staff to, the notices could be mailed to the industrial area property owners and given to the chamber of commerce to contact people; he said that staff would need a four to six week continuance. He noted that the item would go to council with a planning commission recommendation. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he did not necessarily feel that the planning commission needed to notice this item for the commission level since it was going to council . Commissioner Richards stated that he wanted to hear from the property owners . He felt that it was something that needed to be done right and this was a planning issue that would affect property owners rights. He wanted a full public notice, chamber of commerce and other committees notification. Commissioner Downs stated that he started out asking for this on new development, not backing into other development, and noted that staff was adding all of the other areas in. Mr. Diaz replied that if the commission did not want the second provision, it could be eliminated. Commissioner Downs stated that he wanted it; Commissioner Richards concurred. He felt there was an existing safety problem. Commissioner Downs stated that the 1 per 250 could be passed now and the other could be a separate action. Mr. Diaz indicated that the issues could be kept separate and then the notices would go low 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 out for the second section. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He noted that he was concerned about eliminating the illegal uses . After further discussion, Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal; there was no one. Staff indicated that a continuance to October 6 would be sufficient. Commissioner Richards directed staff that anyone effected by the ordinance change should be notified. Mr. Diaz asked Commissioner Richards to clarify who was affected by this ordinance other than property owners . Mr. Diaz stated that staff intended to notify every property owner, contact the chamber of commerce, property owners associations, and the newspaper. It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the zoning ordinance amendment item A to increase the parking requirement for all new construction to 1 per 250 in the commercial/industrial area. Motion carried 4-0 . Commissioner Downs further moved to adopt the resolution recommending approval of this to city council; Commissioner Jonathan seconded the motion. Commissioner Richards asked why this item needed to be separated; he felt the entire issue should be continued. mrrr Commissioner Downs stated that he would like to keep it separate so that if anyone applied between now and then, they would be given the correct standards by staff . Commissioner Richards did not feel there had been good public notice for any of this . Staff clarified that with zoning ordinance amendments the only requirement was that a notice be published in the newspaper. After extensive discussion, the second to the motion was withdrawn and the motion died from the lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan continuing the zoning ordinance amendment to October 6 . Staff stated that they would withdraw the application and come back after it had been readvertised and reworded. No further commission action was needed. Action: Staff withdrew the application for processing at a later date after legal noticing as directed by commission. 10 '""� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 C. Case No. TT 27520 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, ,,o Applicant Request for approval to subdivide the remaining 325 acres of Bighorn Golf Club for 104 lots southwest of Cahuilla Way and Highway 74 . Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and indicated that a letter had been received from Joseph Cady with general concerns on the impact to his house. He noted that when Mr. Cady's and Mrs . Cooper's homes were built, their homes were only five feet or closer to the property line. He recommended approval of TT 27520 . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOSEPH CADY, 71-855 Jaguar stated that he had never seen a map and asked about the setback. Mr. Joy noted that the map had been available in his office for over one year. Commissioner Richards gave Mr. Cady his copy of the map. Mr. Cady stated that it was a beautiful development, but indicated he would like setbacks that would not destroy their access to the road or block their view. He also stated that security was a concern. He stated that they had that property for forty years and never had any break-ins; since construction began on the Bighorn project they had three or four break-ins . He felt a provision was needed for better security. Mr. Joy clarified that the setback from Mr. Cady' s house to the closest Bighorn house was approximately 80 feet to 100 feet. He stated the plans showed a road adjacent to the property line and adjacent to the house on the hill and the road itself appeared to be 40 feet to 50 feet from the property line. Mr. Cady indicated he was concerned about establishing a no man's land between Bighorn and Cahuilla because they liked the character of Cahuilla the way it was . MR. JOE COOPER, Ann Cooper's Son, 49-225 Bighorn and 71- 750 in Cahuilla Way. He stated that right now there was 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 an existing driveway going up to the Bighorn property. He asked if that was within the 80-100 foot setback. Mr. Joy stated that it was his understanding that the driveway, since it ran onto Bighorn Golf Club' s property, would be eliminated. Mr. Cooper stated that his only concern was that the way the driveway was now, it was their only way to turn around. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she would ask the applicant to address that issue. MR. CARL CARDINALLI, Westinghouse Desert Communities, stated that appreciated the concerns expressed. He indicated that the plans spoke for themselves . He stated they planned a perimeter wall for their private community and some landscaped area would be along the wall, but not a wide area, depending on the course of the roadway and how much it converged from the northern boundary. There would also be a 30 foot street and the nearest house would be setback 24 feet from back of curb. He said that the average setback was between 75-85 feet. As to the security, he said they would not want any neighbor or anyone who would come onto their site to be vandalized; he said there was no place for that anywhere. He indicated that as much as they could in the decision making in the selection of subcontractors and contractors, one thing they looked into was there references and reputation. He said that they had an onsite security force and guards, as well as a roving vehicle on a 24 hour basis . He stated that he was not aware of any problem. He said that if there were any leads or evidence, they would be glad to investigate. In terms of the driveway, they would be willing to make necessary improvements to allow access and turn around, which was still available to the Coopers. After further discussion, Mr. Cardinalli stated that he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Richards asked how the lot sales were doing. Mr. Cardinalli stated that they were doing well, even in this slow economy. He indicated that they were looking forward to the coming season and their energies were focused on polishing and completion of their amenities . He said they were trying to put on their best face, 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1992 especially with the upcoming national exposure which would benefit the city and Bighorn. He stated that they were in the process of completing the clubhouse and anticipated its completion by November 15 . He indicated that they were installing an additional water feature that would be as beautiful as the front features . Commissioner Downs asked if Mr. George would be doing the water feature; Mr. Cardinalli replied yes and described the technique Mr. George was using to complete it. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. 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. 1584, approving TT 27520, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0 . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adjourning the meeting to August 18, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 19 p.m. VA42, ATTEST: RAM ON A. DIAZ, S Crary CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission ,!tm 13 July 1992 TO: Members of the La Paz Board of Sacred Heart Parish FROM: Residents of La Paz Villas RE: Proposed co%Muction on La Paz property We wish to register our opposition to a proposed gate at any point along the wall parallel to Deep Canyon Road. Such gate would impinge on the security (the front gate and back gate were once carded or keyed but remain .ter broken) and privacy of the residents. The undersigned represent only a portion of remaining residents; some are away at this time of intense heat. SignatuM o � , Olt HIM ... Ogg July 22, 1992 1 A Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Deu Pree (Lucille) 568-9738 Now 1 B Vacant 2 A Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hoy 779-0486 2 B Betsy Welte 346-2503 3 A Monsignor Vincent Cooke 340-1928 3 B Matilda (Tyl) Lewis 568-6799 4 A Mrs. Bobbie Wiggins 346-7014 4 B Mr. & Mrs. Maurice Saint Cyr (Marie) 340-3651 5 A Ms. Rachel Kay 779-0947 5 B Pamela Chilton 773-1011 6 A Shirley Grote 341-0607 6 B Mr. & Mrs. Fred Quintanilla (Angela:) 341-3671 10 A Mr. Charles Dilling 341-7864 n 10B Emil Kaer 773-9803 d Y 11 A Mr. & Mrs. C.H. Ellingburgh (Estelle) 341-6730 h 773-0522 11 B Harold & Nell Radabau g OVER u�zizi :z�'::�'�;:ixz��zi„xiµ N rz�,,,,,u, .{,x,•„ zsE{:s'�: :.,z.ss:.x ;,zx. <:<;;z<«��:..,;:,.:::::::,..::.:.«:..:..::: R " NO M z•.,,,. „a z, z 12 A Mrs. Anna McGowan 341-7441 12 B Mrs. Geraldine Hanson 773-9222 13 A Mr. & Mrs. William Sinnott (Lou) 568-6441 13 B Mr. & Mrs Donald Bouton (Pat) 779-8704 14 A Mrs. Elizabeth Wain (WORK 346-6111) (HOME) 346-5834 14 B Vacant 15 A Mr. & Mrs. Charles Meister (Mary) 346-7397 15 B Mrs. Peggy Newsome 779-0732 i