Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1215 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 15, 1992 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE NOW I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Randy White Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe Jeff Winklepleck IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the December 1, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner White, approving the December 1, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent December 3, 1992 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 24632 - ROBERT C. VATCHER, Applicant Request for approval of a one year time extension for a tentative tract map to subdivide 77 . 8 gross acres into 176 single family lots, 2 additional lots set aside for 213 future apartment units and a lot for the existing CVWD well tow site; the whole site is located at the southwest corner of Country Club Drive MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 and Portola Avenue. The map was a� originally approved on January 16, 1990 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. TT 27524 - WILSHIRE WEST, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 17 . 64 acres of PR 17 . 5 zoned land located on the south side of Hovley Lane, 1930 feet east of Portola Avenue into 82 single family lots having minimum lot sizes of 7200 square feet and minimum widths of 60 feet. Mr. Diaz explained that a continuance to the meeting of January 19 , 1993 was requested. He explained that he was hesitant because of a possible problem with the permit streamlining act in terms of having to make a decision; however, the applicants have requested the continuance. He said that the permit streamlining act was an act passed by the state legislature six or seven years ago to speed up the development process . The applicant requested the continuances and they were present; also, even if the permit streamlining act were to approve this development, 82 single family residences would be approved versus the previously approved 200 apartments . Mr. Diaz did not see a problem with the lower density. He recommended a continuance to January 19 , 1993, stating for the record that the request was made by the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked why this item had been continued so many times; Mr. Diaz said the applicant was present and could address that issue. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TOM HABERCORN, Wilshire West/West Side Bank, said that he was requesting the continuance because they had 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 been negotiating with the City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency/Carlos Ortega, and with Bill Rosenberger of the Riverside County Housing Authority. He said they had anticipated an answer from the city with the number for the program on the property before the last planning commission meeting, but it had been delayed. On December 6 the chairman of the board of the bank came down to reach an agreement with Mr. Ortega on the city purchasing the property. At that time he indicated that what the city wanted to spend for the property was too low; therefore, he instructed his engineer to go forth with the revisions proposed by staff and had since been negotiating with private developers to go forward with single family homes . He said that was why they were requesting another continuance. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the delay was not because of the design of the project, but because of negotiations with the city. Mr. Habercorn concurred; he said they had no problem with the design. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Habercorn was comfortable with the continuance to January 19 to address the matter. Mr. Habercorn said he would prefer 60 days to the second meeting in February; staff concurred and recommended February 16 . Mr. Habercorn concurred. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Commissioner White asked if the negotiations had anything to do with the proposed Avenue 42 . Mr. Habercorn replied no. Mr. Diaz explained that the negotiations had to do with some type of affordable housing/Housing Authority project. Mr. Habercorn said that it had to do with a self-help housing program. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, continuing TT 27524 to February 16, 1993 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . B. Case No. 4025 SA - PIZZA HUT, Applicant Request for approval of an exception to section 25 . 68 . 390 of the Palm Desert tow 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 Zoning Ordinance to allow for a second freestanding sign for the La Posada Center along Highway 111 frontage at 72- 310 Highway 111 . Mr. Winklepleck explained that the applicant was requesting an exception to the part of code that allowed shopping centers in industrial parks in excess of three and a half acres of land one identification sign on each right-of-way on each frontage. An exception could be granted in instances where the applicant faced exceptional circumstances, such as wall signs could not be seen, which was the case in this instance. The applicant was required to show that whatever sign being proposed would be integrated with the architecture of the building and would not be detrimental to neighboring businesses or the community. He had distributed a revised sign and explained the applicant was requesting to relocate two existing wall signs to a 6 ' x 9 ' 3" monument sign. He said the sign would have a stucco finish painted to match the building and the letter copy would be bronze 24" reverse channel letters . The monument sign would be located approximately 18 feet from the face of curb next to the building. Pictures were provided in the packet showing vehicles traveling east and west along Highway Ill and he felt it was clear that the wall signs were not visible. Staff had originally suggested that the sign be relocated to the facia area; the applicant felt this was infeasible because there was little or no access to illuminate the signage, the landscape partially shielded the fascia area and the letters would have to be reduced in size, which would lessen the visibility further. At the last architectural commission meeting on December 8 they reviewed the application--there was a motion of approval made which died on a 2-2 vote. The commissioners in opposition felt the applicant would be better served to locate the sign on the existing entryway signs and they would be willing to enlarge the signs to accommodate the new sign. The property management, Toys R Us and other members of the center, approved the proposed sign. He said that Mr. Drell spoke with a member of the property management and they had offered Pizza Hut room on the existing sign as an alternative. Staff recommended approval of the proposal, subject to limiting the sign to six feet in height, which the revised plan showed. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the revision would take the proposal down from seven feet to six feet and from 12 feet three inches wide to nine feet three inches; Mr. Winklepleck concurred. 4 rri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 • Commissioner Whitlock asked if there was a reason there was no plan before commission to add the Pizza Hut sign to the existing sign as an option or was this because Pizza Hut would prefer their own freestanding sign. Mr. Winklepleck replied that the applicant could address that issue. Chairman Spiegel asked how the sign would be illuminated at night; Mr. Winklepleck indicated that it would be backlit similar to signs in the DSL project; no light would come through the letters, there would just be a halo effect. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JAMES ENGLE, JR. , Imperial Sign Company, 46-120 Calhoun Street in Indio, stated that they initially researched doing plans to make that sign bigger and Travellers Inn was not opposed, but Toys R Us was opposed. In doing that, they wanted their copy to remain the same height and Pizza Hut would want to be the same height as everyone else. They would have had to make a new sign, it would be expensive and twice the size of the one now, so they felt the only other recourse was to propose what was before the commission UAW now, which would bring down the cost about half and make everyone happy. Commissioner Cox felt that the Travellers Inn and Toys R Us sign was a large sign right now and personally did not want to see that sign any larger. Mr. Ingle concurred. Commissioner Cox indicated one of the largest signs was the Marshall ' s and indicated there were examples of other signs that were comparable to the Pizza Hut proposal and being a business person herself, she would be upset with the visibility and would like a distinctive sign, one people would recognize even if they could not read it. She felt the proposal accomplished that, but was concerned that it stay small and compact. Chairman Spiegel 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. Commissioner Whitlock informed commission that she would be abstaining from the vote. Chairman Spiegel felt the sign was nice and looked better than the signs at Mervyn' s, Circuit City, and Toys R Us . In low 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 driving by Pizza Hut the existing sign was not visible from the street and he felt the proposal was appropriate. Commissioner White also felt the sign proposal was nice. Action: Moved by Commissioner White, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Whitlock abstained) . Moved by Commissioner White, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1600 , approving 4025 SA, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Whitlock abstained) . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DEEP CANYON AND HIGHWAY Ill - Henry Tasaka, Applicant Request for conceptual site plan approval and recognition of responsible areas for off-site improvements to allow the applicant/owner to proceed with the too application process for development of the office/retail development. Mr. Diaz explained that the northwest side of Deep Canyon and Highway 111 was discussed and after extensive discussion with the various city departments there was a proposed realignment and Mr. Tasaka was asking if his proposal met the intent of the city in terms of how that intersection should be done in terms of traffic and his development. Staff did not have a problem with the plan. Commissioner Jonathan asked what staff was requesting. Mr. Diaz replied approval of the layout. He noted that one of the initial concerns was access into Smokey' s and this had been worked out. Mr. Diaz said the commission should determine if this plan met the intention of the commission in its previous approval . He stated that a whole new public hearing could be done for its approval, but if the commission did not like it the applicant should be so directed. Mr. Gaugush clarified that one of the general answers the applicant was seeking was if there were any problems conceptually; the applicant and his architect and engineer looked at the requested offsite and onsite improvements and 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 +r before going forward with the precise plan for the project it was his understanding that they were looking for a "nod" . Commissioner Jonathan felt this was unusual to have the applicant coming in at this time of the process . He said that he did not want to mislead the applicant and say now that he did not see anything wrong with it, when it was possible he might have concerns when it comes before the commission formally and further details were available about ingress and egress, coverage and other issues were provided. He stressed he did not want to be misleading. Mr. Diaz said that the applicant could be told that in terms of the public hearing, when testimony comes in the plan could be accepted or rejected. He felt it was to the city' s best interest to improve that situation. He said that Mr. Tasaka was present and he could tell the commission what he was looking for. Basically, if there was no way the commission could approve the request regardless of whatever testimony was received, he urged the commission to tell the applicant the proposal was unacceptable now; however, if there wasn't a problem and it looked alright, he could proceed. In terms of the testimony originally received, the main concern was from the owner of Smokey' s and his visibility to Highway 111 . That had been resolved and staff would work that out. Public works department' s main concern was that the intersection of Deep tow Canyon and Highway 111 was one of the worst one and needed to be improved. Mr. Gaugush stated that one of the biggest problems with the intersection was the offset that exists between the north side and the south side with respect to Highway 111 and Deep Canyon; the developer would take care of one of the four corners in providing street widening and physical improvements, as well as the right-of-way dedication. As indicated in some of the correspondence in the packets, the redevelopment agency in the capital project budget had $1 .2 million marked for improvements at this intersection, which basically covered the balance of the property. One of the big problems with getting this project moving along was determination of who would do what and he felt that had been accomplished and with those issues taken care of the applicant apparently felt he was ready to move forward. Chairman Spiegel noted in the packet that this was before the commission previously and that Smokey' s had concerns with it- -he asked if that was the only problem with the project; Mr. Diaz stated that the concerns they had were their visibility and access from Highway 111 . He said that the other reason it had been continued was the city' s process of determining tow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 ,t how the improvements for the intersection would be accomplished. MR. HENRY TASAKA stated that he represented the owner of the property and indicated he had been working with staff for over a year to resolve these problems . He was asking for the conceptual approval only and they were not saying they wanted the commission to give them cart- blanche. He felt the problems with Smokey' s had been resolved and they moved the building back so that it was in line with Smokey' s, it also provided circulation-- Smokey' s could come in from the back at the Alessandro entrance and could use their parking that served the common parking area more or less in agreement with the overall frontage study and core commercial plan. One commissioner said they did not want to ask for anything, they just wanted the concept or idea to set the circulation up and he felt that had been resolved with staff . He was asking for the commission' s unofficial approval and if they liked it the applicant would come in with a full-blown presentation. He said he was not asking for any favors, but they wanted to know if they could commence and resolve the problems they had. Commissioner Jonathan asked for the location of the Highway 111 access on the proposed rendering; Mr. Tasaka said there would not be any access from Deep Canyon because of the short distance of the block; therefore, access had to be from De Anza or Alessandro, but they accepted that for the simple reason that there would be a common access in the rear for Smokey' s and their property. That way there would be no U- turn coming in off Highway 111 from the frontage road. That would be corrected. Commissioner Jonathan asked if heading west on Highway 111, if it was possible to make a U-turn into the parking area and how would people be prevented from doing that; Mr. Tasaka replied there was no access from Deep Canyon on the east. Commissioner Jonathan clarified west on Highway 111; Mr. Tasaka indicated that vehicles could turn right on Deep Canyon and go left on Alessandro, could turn right on De Anza way and right into the project, or straight through and around. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they could make a right on De Anza and an immediate right into the project; Mr. Tasaka replied yes, and that there was a deceleration lane. Mr. Diaz said that the reason there was no right-right immediately was because these people did not own the property in front of Smokey' s that would allow the direct right- right. Mr. Gaugush stated that the intent at this time was for the circulation to permit the movement described by 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 ... Commissioner Jonathan. The portion of the frontage road currently in front of Smokey' s would remain as frontage road terminating in the access to this subject property. It would come straight into the property. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would still be possible to make a U-turn from Highway 111 coming into the subject property. Commissioner Jonathan said that he did not see a deceleration lane drawn into the plan and that was a concern. Another concern was with the drop in elevation and small amount of room for a U-turn, he was concerned that if there was traffic coming the other way, it might get backed up onto Highway 111 . Mr. Gaugush stated that was an element that would be addressed when the precise engineering was done; the situation Commissioner Jonathan described had been recognized and they was aware of that situation. Commissioner Cox asked for clarification that if driving west on Highway 111, this corner would look like the corner at Portola and Highway 111 whereby this property could not be directly accessed and vehicles would have to go past it or around. The access would be eliminated. That was correct. Mr. Tasaka clarified that there was no access off Deep Canyon because of the shortness of that block. He said that he was * ' willing to go through the processes, but just wanted to say they resolved everything with the redevelopment agency, planning and public works and asked for nothing official, but conceptual approval by an action that said the commission approved the overall concept and they would come in with the full plans and be subject to all the processes . Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission. There was no one. Commissioner White asked staff if the commission was talking about giving up part of the frontage road to be part of a parking lot; Mr. Gaugush replied that was part of the project, it would require the vacation of existing frontage road right-of-way; at the same time the city would be acquiring right-of-way from the property owner on Deep Canyon. Deep Canyon and Highway 111 would be widened. Commissioner White asked how much Highway 111 would be widened; Mr. Gaugush replied approximately 14 feet to 16 feet and potentially wider with a deceleration lane. The intent was to create enough for an additional lane or more. Commissioner Jonathan cautioned the applicant that when staff asked if there was anything presented that raised an extreme � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 objection on their part and speaking for himself he did not WA see a problem, but by saying that, neither was he endorsing the project and was reserving the right as the details and formal application was submitted to say that if there were problems, he could find the entire project objectionable. He did not want to be misleading, but also did not see anything extremely objectionable right now. He informed staff that he did not like a project like this being presented on an informal basis . Mr. Diaz stated that from staff ' s standpoint, if they had their way, there would be no frontage road in front of Smokey' s and the access to this entire parcel would be between Highway 111 and the existing Alessandro. He understood the commission' s concerns about having something come before them and cautioned the applicant that a "nod" did not mean approval . Chairman Spiegel asked if it would be possible to discuss this with the owners of Smokey' s to see if they would be willing to give up their portion of the frontage road. Mr. Diaz said they would be notified of the hearing, noting that the city had gone through this before and felt that Smokey' s wanted that access . The commission could ask them at the hearing. Mr. Diaz also said that they could be contacted �rri ahead of time. Chairman Spiegel asked if the city could take it from them; Mr. Diaz replied yes, that it was possible through eminent domain, but he would not recommend it. Chairman Spiegel said that as he understood it, the planning commission was being requested to approve the overall conceptual site plan and recognize the areas of responsibility for offsite improvements so that the owner could commence with the application process for development of the office/retail development. He asked if there was a motion to that effect. There was no motion made. Mr. Diaz said that as long as there were no violent objections based on what was before commission, that was okay. Chairman Spiegel indicated that the applicant could proceed. Action: No action was taken. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1992 B. STATUS REPORT ON TRAFFIC SAFETY PROBLEMS ON JONI DRIVE - REPORT BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Mr. Gaugush noted that there was a report from Mr. Folkers submitted that was a follow-up to comments from last June. One item in the memo was the city' s desire to acquire some property to provide alternative access into that particular area through Avenue 42 and those negotiations were progressing slowly, i .e. acquisition as far as the ability to successfully do some substantive changes/corrections with respect to circulation within that development area. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone had any questions . There were none. Action: No action was needed. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner White, adjourning the meeting to January 5, 1993 by m ute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was ad ' urned at 7 : 4 .m. RAMON A. DIAZ, ec ary ATTEST: i' SABBY JO HAN, ice Chairman Palm DeFrt Planning Commission /tm �` 11