Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0202 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 2, 1993 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE .., * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Cox led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None (Mr. Diaz noted there was still one vacancy on the commission) Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Bob Hargreaves Joe Gaugush '"� Phil Drell Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the January 19, 1993 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the January 19 , 1993 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent actions of the January 28, 1993 city council meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. Chairman Spiegel suggested that commission consider Item VIII Miscellaneous prior to the public hearing items . Commission concurred. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 VIII . MISCELLANEOUS rr A. RESOLUTION SELECTING BOUNDARIES OF PROJECT AREA NO. 4 AND APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR SUBJECT PROJECT AREA. Mr. Diaz explained that this resolution would be to select boundaries for Project Area No. 4 and approve the preliminary plan. He noted that the city was in the process of annexing the Palm Desert Country Club area and had completed the fiscal impact report. One concern of prezoning the area was to ensure that the area would not create an undue fiscal impact on the City of Palm Desert. One way to do this was to establish a redevelopment project area. Mr. Diaz indicated that Mr. Dave Yrigoyen was present to answer any questions . He stressed that the purpose of the plan was to identify the project area. Chairman Spiegel asked Mr. Yrigoyen to address the commission. MR. DAVE YRIGOYEN stated that development law required that this come before planning commission prior to going before city council . He said that h� was present to answer questions . � Mr. Diaz indicated that the specific plan would come before commission for public hearing--this procedure was to establish the project area, which included all of Palm Desert Country Club. Chairman Spiegel noted that many streets in the area did not comply with Palm Desert ' s standards for streets, sewers, gutters, etc . He asked how that would be handled. Mr. Diaz indicated that was one mission that the redevelopment plan would take care of if zt was adopted and the project area established. Streets would meet city standards in terms of curbs and gutters and street widths . He said some standards might have to be modified because some streets had rolled curbs instead of straight curbs . Repaving and resurfacing were also goals of the redevelopment project plan. He said that when the plan came before the commission for hearing, the commission would be informed of how the money would be spent, when it would be spent, etc. That was the intent of the plan--to take care of some of these problems . Chairman Spiegel asked if the residents in the area would be given an opportunity to voice their opinion before the plan was finalized. Mr. Diaz replied yes . Mr. Yrigoyen stated 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 � that everyone within the boundary would be notified by certified mail . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1603, recommending to city council Project Area No. 4 boundaries and a preliminary plan. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. TT 27692 - D & F DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a 23 lot single family zero lot line subdivision implementing conditions of PP 92-2 on 2 . 5 acres at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. � Project was previously assessed for purposes of CEQA and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact approved in connection with TT 25987 . Mr. Drell noted that this case involved a precise plan that the commission approved last year. The applicant did not feel apartments were appropriate right now and was proposing a single family development at a lower density. He said the plan conformed to the subdivision ordinance. One issue at the architectural commission meeting was the views from second story windows into yards--that was addressed in community development condition no. 9 , which should have the following words added, "or architecturally screened to prevent views to adjacent yards . " This could be accomplished through obscured glass, or screen walls . Otherwise, the conditions would be implemented from the previously approved plan. Commissioner Cox expressed concern about the traffic . The corner of Fred Waring and Portola was very busy and Santa Rosa was very close to Fred Waring. With the additional 23 families, she wanted to know if the traffic impact had been addressed. Mr. Drell indicated that the level of service on ... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1993 Santa Rosa was very low. The site was coming in with fewer r1 units than normal conditions . He said that at some point Portola would have to be widened and this project was dedicating land to that effort. He felt that if there was a problem at the intersection, it was not because of this project and did not think it would be worsened by this project. Commissioner Cox asked if traffic was addressed with the original project. Mr. Drell replied yes, to that same extent. Mr. Gaugush stated that specific mitigation measures were not applied because it was not felt there would be substantial increases in traffic volume associated with this low level development. There was on-going programs to improve intersection capacity throughout the community and alterations had been done to striping to prohibit movements in significant conflict at Goleta, just north of the intersection. He stated that specifically putting a burden on this particular development for corrective measures to existing conditions was not appropriate. The applicant would be paying into the traffic uniform mitigation fee for valley- wide regional improvements and for single family homes the contribution would be approximately $800 per unit. Commissioner Jonathan asked what staff was asking the � commission to approve specifically. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant received approval of a precise plan with elevations and conceptual approval, but they had not done the engineering. A condition of the precise plan was that the applicant would have to receive approval for a map and the proposal included the engineering and precise design in terms of the roads, utilities, etc. , that had to be done to implement the precise plan for the single family homes . Mr. Drell felt that because they had a unique product, the applicant wanted to receive approval before hiring an engineer to do the technical work. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any substantial changes made, particularly related to the location of the two story units and the direction the units face, as well as the placement of the second story windows . He noted that this came back to commission a second time for a reconfiguration to ameliorate the concerns of the commission. Mr. Drell affirmed that those items were still in place and had been addressed. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. rr 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 � MR. FRANZ TIERRE, one of the owners, 46-333 Burroweed in Palm Desert, stated that he was present to answer any questions . He noted that one of the things they wanted to do was to eliminate a condition that was agreed to on the previous plan. Condition No. 16 of the original approval to underground or enclose the storm drain along about one third along the southern part of the property. Mr. Drell clarified that because the public works department stated that all conditions of the original approval were part of this approval , condition no. 16 of the original resolution was a condition. Mr. Drell read the condition, but noted that it had since been determined that the drainage easement was outside of the property. When the actual technical work was done with the survey, the drainage easement was not on this property, nor did it drain to that property. It actually drained to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Tierre concurred and explained that one condition required a masonry wall along that property line. Their drainage all went the other way. That was their only request and he felt this was an excellent development for the area. ""' Mr. Gaugush concurred with the deletion of condition no. 16 . Chairman Spieqel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MR. GILL BRAUDER, Advanced Engineering Group, stated that he was present to answer technical questions the commission might have. MR. DOUG WALKER, owner of a house at the corner of San Jose and Catalina, asked for clarification of what could be allowed under the R-2 zoning. He thought R-2 zoning allowed duplexes and was concerned about density. He noted that the area from Catalina south on San Jose were single family dwellings and noted that the proposed project would be about double the density as the adjoining area. Mr. Drell explained that the R-2 zoned density ranged from one unit per 7, 000 square feet to one unit per 4 , 000 square feet. One unit per 4 , 000 square feet was approximately 11 units per acre. He indicated this project was on Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa predominantly consisted of apartments . The line was on the back of this property, which was to Catalina, ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 and those were predominantly singie family uses . He rl explained that under the R-2 zone, this site would be entitled to 27 units for two and a half acres, but the applicant was proposing to build only 23 units . In deference to the adjacent single family and the lower density single family units on Catalina, the R-2 zone required that two story units had to transition to one story within 125 feet of that one story line. That was what this project was doing. It faced Santa Rosa, which was a multi-family street, therefore it had two story units facing Santa Rosa. Going toward Catalina it was one story. The project density was less than what the R-2 zone would allow. Mr. Walker asked about the major purpose of the housing once it was built. He asked if it was for the general public for people to own their individual homes , or if it was designed for seniors, or low income people. Mr. Drell stated that it was designed as a project for the general public. By nature of Santa Rosa, it was not going to be high income. The applicant would have to make it as moderate income as possible for the project to be marketable. Mr. Walker asked if the project was designed specifically as one of the state mandated or encouraged r/ low income housing developments . Mr. Drell answered that there had been no discussions, associations or agreements with the city relative to any assistance or subsidies . He noted that this project would be on a street where 95$ of the residents would fall within the low or very low income range, but was not designed as subsidized low income housing. Mr. Diaz stated that staff could not guarantee what the income level of this project would be; that would depend on the free enterprise, capitalistic system. There were no city or redevelopment agency funds going to this project. MRS. WALKER addressed the commission and stated that she was concerned about drainage; they owned the lot on the corner of Catalina and San Jose and they were assessed a fee for streets and sewers . They had to dedicate about one quarter of their land to the city for streets on the San Jose side. She said that the way the cul-de- sac was designed, it drained out the north end of San Jose right into where this project was going in. She noted that Mr. Tierre asked not to have to deal with 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1993 � that water and wanted to know where that water would go if it did not go into this project. Mr. Gaugush replied that the water would continue to go where it went today--through the existing open drainage structure which started at the end of the cul-de-sac on San Jose and terminated on Portola. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mrs . Walker was experiencing drainage problems there; she replied no, she was just concerned. Mrs . Walker replied no, that she was just concerned because the notice they received the first time they had heard about what would be done on the property and knew a preschool was previously proposed for that land, but was rejected. Mr. Drell stated that a 27 unit condo project was approved on the property about two years ago. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the preschool in that area was rejected because of objections from area residents . `r Mrs . Walker said she was also concerned about traffic; the intersection of Portola and Fred Waring was very busy. She indicated that she works at C.O.D. and takes her children to school at Palm Desert Middle School , so she goes through that intersection daily. The block between Santa Rosa and Fred Waring was only two houses deep and with the left turn lane going north on Portola, that left turn lane was often full back to Santa Rosa, so she did not feel that putting 23 additional houses would help that situation. She felt the traffic should be studied further. Mr. Drell stated that the fact that a current problem might exist did not deprive this property owner from using his property unless he inordinantly contributed to the problem. Commissioner Jonathan asked about a right egress only. Mr. Drell indicated that this would require Santa Rosa Avenue to be right-turn only. Mr. Diaz felt that part of the problem with a right-turn only from Santa Rosa was that unless there was a median installed, there was no way to enforce it. He felt everyone agreed there was a problem and that was the Measure A TUMF fee was established, which required the development to make their dedications as well as pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. In terms of any nexus .rr 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 requirements or connections between the traffic generated by ,� this project and public needs, they were meeting those generated needs . He said that hopefully when all the money had been generated from Measure A the problems could be solved. Mr. Tierre said that he was not sure if they would be in the category for first time home buyers or not, because the home would not be under $100, 000 . He felt that if everything went as planned their sales prices would be between $120, 000 and $135, 000 . He also hoped to be able to attract retirees that liked the area and neighborhood. Mr. Tierre indicated there had been some support for the child care center, but the proprietor wanted to run it 24 hours per day. He said that his project would be beneficial to property values in the area. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Whitlock said that she would move for approval . Commissioner Jonathan seconded the motion, but stated that he recognized the existing traffic problem. He did not suggest � there was a nexus or that this developer should bear the financial burden for resolving this problem, but asked that staff review that intersection to see if there might be a simple interim solution and asked public works to address that issue at a future meeting. He noted that the city had been successful with using plastic pylons in the past ( i .e. Country Club at Lucky' s shopping center) . Mr. Gaugush said they would look into the matter. Chairman Spiegel agreed that the project would be an asset to the area and felt if the left-hand lane on Portola could be lengthened in any way, it would be an advantage . He noted that when Cook Street reopened it might take some of the traffic off Portola. Mr. Diaz said that the public works department would look into extending the left-hand turn lane and would come back at the next meeting with pros and cons . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0. 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1993 ••. Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1604 , approving TT 27692, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . B. Case No. RV 91-5 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for revocation of an approval to park a trailer in the front yard area on private property at 74-691 Candlewood Street. Mr. Diaz distributed photographs of the property and explained that the conditions of approval to mitigate the trailer storage through landscaping and fencing had not been met . Staff recommended revocation of the permit . He noted there were letters sent to the applicant which were provided with the staff report, and one letter of opposition had been received. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if Mr. Barboza wished to address the commission. � MR. BARBOZA said that approximately five months ago he was before the planning commission requesting permission to park an RV in the front yard of his property. He was granted that permission after three or four visits and a complete layout was done. He said he had not seen staff ' s photographs, but he had a few of his own, which he would show commission. Mr. Barboza indicated that at the time of approval it was agreed upon with the drawings that a hedge would be done with oleanders in order to block the view of the trailer where it was sitting. Prior to that the trailer was sitting at a vertical angle to the street, but a horizontal angle was requested. That required taking out quite a few plants, redoing sprinkler systems--the whole thing, which he did and which he said his pictures proved. He said that it seemed that someone had the impression that oleanders would grow to a six foot height within a four or five month period. He stated that he believed, and he had everything on paper, that he had complied with everything that he agreed to from day one. There was nothing that he had received or that was discussed at the planning commission that gave him a time limit as to how high the landscaping had to be, a completion date or anything else. As far as nothing being done, he stated .�. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 that his photographs showed that he started the project. � He was not happy with the way it was turning out himself, because he did not feel the oleanders would do the job, plus it did not give him the security from vandalism for his property, so he took the initiative and hired a tree company out of Palm Springs to come in and remove trees from his property. He said he had a permit from Palm Desert to put up a six foot cement block fence. He paid to have trees removed and was in the process of putting up a block fence to put the trailer between the block fence and his home. He distributed the pictures and fence permit paperwork to the commission for review. He indicated that one reason he did not get back to Mr. Diaz when he called was because he was out of town, and he also did not think the problem should be discussed on a one-to-one basis . He wanted to bring the problem to a public forum for several reasons . He stated that he had a problem with an individual who was an employee of the city who was on the staff of the code enforcement department. He said this went back several years . He indicated that over seven years ago when he purchased this property there were no gutters or sidewalks . After purchasing the property and moving into the house approximately one year went by and the curbs were put in on Candlewood. �■r At that time he approached members of the city staff in regard to the dumping of broken cement and asphalt being used as fill along their front property lines when this job was being done by the contractors . He received no response, nor did his neighbors, and they all came down in force. He said to this day they dig down 12 inches into their yards and come up with asphalt and broken cement. Shortly after that with this individual, the "harassment" with regards to an RV began. He said he had owned an RV since 1953, there had always been an RV at this property since day one, and the code employee started giving him a bad time as to where the RV was being parked. Mr. Barboza said that he challenged this code officer on it, came down to city hall and asked to speak to the employee' s boss with photographs showing where the RV was parked, the depth of the gravel that it was parked on, and so on. His boss agreed 100 percent and said that he was legal and there was nothing wrong with it and the employee threw his pencil down on the desk and went storming out of the office. He said that he has had nothing but problems from this man ever since. He stated that he was not going to go much further because it could get involved legally. He also 10 `r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1993 ••• said that the employee on city time had personally gone door to door requesting people to write letters against him parking his RV on his property. He had neighbors right now who were willing to testify in a court of law. One told him, "that this individual told her that it would be much easier for her and her husband and the neighbors in future, if she would write a letter showing her opposition to him having the trailer on his property. " He did not believe this was the position of a city employee. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the purpose of the meeting was to determine if Mr. Barboza ' s project complied with the provisions . He sympathized with the problems Mr. Barboza was experiencing, but indicated that the planning commission was the wrong forum for that matter. Mr. Barboza agreed, but stated that he wanted to bring up the matter in a public forum in case it had to be taken farther. He said that when the project was completed, and he indicated it would be very shortly-- permits had been pulled for the wall--that trailer would be between his home and a six foot block fence and over 60 feet back from the street from the curb completely '� enclosed. He said it would "not be visible in any way, shape, or form from the street" . Mr. Diaz informed commission that he did not know a permit for the block wall was taken out, but would look into it . He recommended that the item be continued for 45 days and that would give ample time for this to be worked out--for staff to look into it and come back with a report in terms of the other allegations, also. Mr. Diaz stated that staff preferred a block wall to a hedge that was not growing and thanked Mr. Barboza for pointing out a loop hole in not setting up a definitive time for when the hedge had to be the required height. He also thanked Mr. Barboza for putting up the block wall . Staff recommended a 45 day continuance. Mr. Diaz said i f the wall was up and the mitigation measures met, Mr. Barboza would not be required at the next meeting--that could be worked out. Chairman Spiegel noted that according to the information given to the commission a letter went to Mr. Barboza on October 5, 1992 indicating that nothing had been done--he asked Mr. Barboza if there was any conversation with the city after that. Mr. Barboza replied none whatsoever--he said that he was out of town a lot and had to take time off work �.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 to be at the planning commission meeting. Also, because of � the situation he did not feel that personal one-on-one conversation between he and Mr. Diaz would solve this problem, nor would it give him a form of legal base. He felt the same person who informed Mr. Diaz that nothing had been done was well aware of the wall permit and of the trees being removed. He said the day the tree company was there they wanted to know what was special because this city employee had made five passes in front of the house within a two-hour period. The employee never stopped, but was well aware of what was happening. He did have conversations with him, but not with Mr. Diaz . Commissioner Cox asked when Mr. Barboza pulled the permit for the wall . Mr. Barboza replied on January 28, 1993 . Mr. Barboza said that the reason for delaying the wall was because it was a common wall with the neighbor and he had to wait for them before proceeding with this . Mr. Barboza got his photographs back from the commission and said that he would be getting together with Mr. Diaz on the other matter. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one . It was moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by r/ Commissioner Cox, to continue this matter 45 days . Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was before the commission in May of 1992; a letter went to the applicant on October 5, 1992 with no response, a letter went out on January 7 , 1993 with no response, and now the commission was being presented with plans to take care of things . There were concerned residents, several who had tried to get this situation rectified. Since this ordinance which brings RV' s before the commission was implemented, he felt that 90 percent of the commission' s time on this issue and had been with this particular application. He felt that 30 days was sufficient time and if the problem was not completely resolved and behind them at that point, the planning commission should vote to revoke the permit. He recommended a 30 day continuance. He felt that was plenty of time to get the wall in place since the permit had already been pulled. Mr. Barboza agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that 30 days was more than ample and agreed with him 100 percent. He said that he wanted to get things going and completed also. rrI 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 r•• Mr. Diaz asked for a recommendation on the part of the commission to ask staff to look at the entire ordinance and see if it really should be before the planning commission at all and he could come back with a report on the whole RV issue. Chairman Spiegel said that would be fine. Commissioners Whitlock and Cox amended their motion to be for a 30 day continuance. Action• Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, continuing RV 91-5 one month, to March 2, 1993, by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . C. Case No. CUP 92-3 A - GEORGE BUONO, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow a 3, 000 square foot mini-market at 74-991 Avenue 42 in the S. I . ( service industrial ) zone. Mr. Winklepleck informed staff that it was actually a 2 , 000 � square foot mini-mart as opposed to a 3, 000 square foot mini- mart which was what was on the application. He said the original conditional use permit approved a 2 , 800 square foot restaurant on May 5, 1992 . The applicant wanted to replace that approval with a 2, 000 square foot mini-mart. The mini- mart at this location would not pose a negative impact with regards to parking or on the tenants in the area . The previously approved restaurant required 24 parking spaces and the mini-mart would only require 15 . Hours of operation would be from 5 : 00 a .m. to 10 : 00 p.m. and had been looked at by the sheriff 's department--they concur and the conditions of approval reflected this . Mr. Winklepleck noted that both the sheriff ' s department and fire marshal reviewed the project. He recommended approval of the conditional use permit amendment, subject to the conditions of approval . Chairman Spiegel noted that the memo from Deputy Conley did not read like an approval; Mr. Winklepleck stated that the way it was presented to staff was that it was more of a suggestion as opposed to definite conditions of approval . He said that if the commission wished to adopt some of the suggestions the commission could make them conditions of approval . Chairman Spiegel asked about the closing time and use of video equipment. Mr. Winklepleck noted that once the +.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 area businesses were closed, the mini-market might determine � that it should close earlier, but staff was recommending 10 : 00 p.m. . Mr. Diaz indicated the letter said to restrict the business to 10 :00 p.m. , which was staff ' s recommendation. If the commission wished, staff could place a condition that use of video cameras would be required, but that had not been done before. Staff had a concern that video cameras were a "two- edged sword" in terms of security versus invasion of privacy. Ne said there was less of a problem with invasion of privacy in a mini-mart, but staff was hesitant to require them. Mr. Diaz felt that the applicant would take necessary steps for their own secur�ty. Chairman Spiegel asked why planning staff and the crime prevention officer did not get together in advance regarding these issues . He did not know if the applicant needed a video camera or not. Mr. Diaz stated that the crime prevention officer could be at the next meeting to tell the commission what he reviews . At this point staff was hesitant to require that someone install a video camera. He did not have a problem recommending that they look at it, but requiring it was something else. He said he had a hunch that the mini-mart would probably be closed by 8 : 00 p.m. after the •�► businesses were closed, but understood the chairman' s concerns . Commissioner Cox said that she had a real issue with the 10: 00 p.m. closing time. She indicated that the whole Cook Street area closed earlier and asked who would be using it at that later hour. She noted that during the day it would probably be very busy, but after 6 : 00 or 7 : 00 p.m. it would not make sense to be open. Mr. Diaz suggested that the applicant address that issue and reminded commission that any time a conditional use permit was approved, the city had a right to bring that project back and further restrict the hours of operation if there was a problem. Chairman Spiegel o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE OMAN, representing Mr. Buono, stated that they had compliance from the proprietor of the business, the merchant opening the store, that he agreed to restrict his business hours to 10 : 00 p.m. and 10 : 00 p.m. would only be his hours on Friday and Saturday nights . He would probably close at 8: 00 or 9 : 00 p.m. during the 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 �•► week and probably at 7 : 00 p.m. on Sundays . The proprietor also agreed that he would be busy during the daylight hours because it was a business type of area and that was where he expected to draw people from. He thought the video camera was a good idea and had already budgeted for it for his own security. A concern that Mr. Oman wanted to address was the idea of gates--that was something that would cause a problem for Mr. Buono in that parking on the front of the property would be necessary for the mini-market. The new parking lot he put in was very nice and he did not feel it would be a place of loitering or congregation at night. He said that the hours of operation were completely acceptable to the landlord and tenant. Commissioner Cox asked if there would be gasoline service; Mr. Oman replied no. Chairman Spiegel asked why the applicant decided against the restaurant; Mr. Oman stated that the restaurant they came to the commission with was Niccolino' s and they were excited about it because there were not a lot of places for people to eat in that area. As it turned out, for personal reasons and the economy they did not go forward. He felt the mini-market '� was also an excellent idea for that area and that was what they were now pursuing. He noted they were reducing the 2, 800 foot restaurant to a 2 ,000 square foot mini-market. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock felt the conditional use permit was acceptable and moved for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Chairman Spiegel , adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Chairman Spiegel , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1605, approving CUP 92-3 A, subject to conditions . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1993 D. Case No. TT 27709 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, � Applicant Request for approval of a 51 lot single family subdivision to supersede Tract 27228 within Bighorn Golf Club, located southwest of Cahuilla Way and Highway 74 . Mr. Joy explained that the tract map was a reconfiguration of a previously recorded map to utilize the land better and tie- in the circulation in a more efficient manner. He felt this helped the whole project and recommended approval . Commissioner Jonathan noted there was a decrease in lot sizes in the staff report from 11, 000 to 9 ,500 and asked if a variance was required. Mr. Joy replied no, that minimum lot sizes in Palm Desert were 8, 000 square feet and he reviewed the original Bella Vista development agreement requirements . Commissioner Jonathan asked about the reduction in setbacks listed under the conditions of approval . He noted that a chart was usually included in the staff report on how the proposal compares to code. Mr. Joy stated that they were in line with what the city required on planned residential project like this one; he noted that this project compared � better to a normal R-1 project in that there was a golf course completely surrounding the project, so there was ample open space. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was concerned about the distance between units . Mr. Joy stated that side yard setbacks were the same as for R-1 8 , 000 zone. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received specific setbacks : front setbacks were 20 feet for straight driveways and 14 feet for side entry garages; rear setbacks were 18 feet to the golf course; sides were 14 feet total and five feet minimum, which was the city standard. Mr. Joy clarified that for lots between 10, 000 and 20, 000 square feet, side yard setbacks were 20 feet total . He said that the maximum height was in compliance and the development agreement allowed 18 feet, which was the standard at that time. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the only exception to the setback standard was the 14 feet for the side entry garage; Mr. Joy concurred. Chairman Spiegel opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CARL CARDINALLI, Westinghouse Desert Communities, stated that he was present to answer questions . He 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1993 � noted that the 14 foot setback for the side entry garages were deceptive because that was to the structure itself and what they provided with the side entry garage was a little different look from the street view and flexibility in their streetscape. Mr. Joy noted there was a condition from public works that needed to be added regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The applicant was in concurrence with the condition. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1606 , approving TT 27709, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . ..� E. Case Nos . PM 27563, TT 27570, CUP 88-12 Amendment No. 1 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of the subdivision of 160 acres into two parcels, one of which further subdivided into 288 two story condominium timeshare units with a sales building, located north of Hovley Lane between Cook Street and Portola Avenue. Mr. Joy indicated that this project would add 288 units to their existing timeshare operation. He said this was practically identical to the previously approved project. They were transforming the half acre lots into the timeshare units . He said that one letter in opposition was received and it was from a resident in Monterey Country Club, which would be approximately a half a mile away. He stated that the same type of mitigation fees would be imposed. Staff recommended approval . � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 Commissioner Jonathan said there was a computatian for a r maximum number of units allowable for a project and the staf f report indicated that the applicant provided staff with that computation and wanted to confirm that staff checked that information. Mr. Joy xeplied that the computations were correct. Chairman Spiegel stated that he was new to the commission since the timeshare was originally approved. He asked about the requirements for timeshare and in which zones they were allowed. He noted that his experience with timeshare operations was not positive and was concerned. Mr. Diaz stated that when he came to the city in 1980, timeshare was a big issue. The ordinance that was passed at that time allowed timeshare units in commercial zones and was very successful because no one applied. Years later the Marriott, in the planned residential zone, asked for timeshare units and in order for timeshare units to be in the planned residential zone, it was required that they had to be in conjunction with a 500 room resort hotel with an 18 hole championship golf cours�. This would not preclude someone else from coming in with timeshare if they wanted to go in the commercial zone and met those requirements . He did not feel that the city would be challenged on it and the ordinance went through the city attorney' s office. There � were many hearings on this issue. If someone wanted to come in with timeshare, the ordinance says it must be in conjunction with the 500 room hotel and 18 hole championship golf course. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BRENT FARON, Marriott Resorts representative from Lakeland, Florida, said that they were pleased with the proposed plans . He indicated that they had been successful to date and tried to develop everything at greater standards than required by industry to make a difference. He invited Chairman Spiegel to look at their marketing techniques . He stated that their architect, landscape planner, and engineer were present to answer any questions . Chairman Spiegel noted that they had been successful and he had read in Barron' s that it was one of the more successful parts of Marriott the past couple of years . He asked how resales were doing. Mr. Faron stated that the Marriott had been the most successful resale company in the timeshare 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 r• industry and Iast year alone they had $13 million in resa2e timeshare sales . He said their owners had received very satisfactory results . He did not know the exact number for Palm Desert, but resales here had not been a problem. He indicated they approached timeshare by striving for the highest value. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the architecture and design would remain the same as the original buildings in terms of color schemes and floor plans . Mr. Faron indicated they were changing the architectural concept and were going to cluster units, so it would be a little different. 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. Mr. Joy noted that the condition from public works regarding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System also needed to be added to this case. Commissioner Whitlock said that having been znvolved with the original timeshare project and having seen the project, the interiors, and having met some of the guests who had '� purchased timeshare units, she would move for approval . Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any additional points of ingress or egress; Mr. Gaugush replied no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this process created two parcels; Mr. Joy indicated that the previous plan approved a precise plan for the expanded area to Hovley Lane and all of the golf courses, and part of that was just a master plan for the entire project. This separated out one area on the map for future approval of 120 units, which was what the second parcel was separating out. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would second the motion. Chairman Spiegel asked if the current owners of the timeshare units were notified of the hearing; Mr. Joy replied no, they were not within 300 feet of this project. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1607 , � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIS5ION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 approving PM 27563, TT 27570, AND CUP 88-12 Amendment No. 1 , ri subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Cox expressed concern about vacant sites on E1 Paseo ( i .e. Security Pacific Bank Building) and asked if the redevelopment agency could look into the matter. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would look into it and noted that the property was owned by Bank of America and was on the market to sell . He indicated that he would have a representative of the redevelopment agency at the next meeting to address this issue. Commissioner Cox noted that on E1 Paseo there was a feeling of warmth and welcome during the holidays with the lit palm trees . She stated that traveling eastward, there were not many trees and some trees had been removed. She also indicated that on the Ahmanson project, there were palm trees .r that appeared to be dying and asked if it would be possible to transplant those trees to tie-in both ends of E1 Paseo. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would look into that. Chairman Spiegel stated that he spoke with Mr. Ted Lennon, who was requesting to meet with the planning commission prior to bringing his project to them. Chairman Spiegel felt that it would be imperative that representatives from Ironwood Country Club be present at that study session and noted that he had received one letter in opposition to the project from a Mr. and Mrs . Kelly. He asked if something could be done prior to the next meeting. Mr. Diaz recommended that he contact Mr. Lennon and indicate that yes, there would be a study session, but a representative from the Master Association of Ironwood would be present and if representatives from the other Ironwood Associations wanted to be present, it was an open session, but would be stressed that it was not a public hearing. The public hearing would be held at a later date. He felt that Mr. Lennon wanted to present his proposal to determine commission' s concerns and possibly resolve them prior to the public hearing. There would be a public hearing in which public testimony would be taken and Mr. Lennon was not asking for a vote, just 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 r•+ commission concerns . Mr. Diaz indicated that Mr. Lennon had been working with the Living Desert and Ironwood residents . Mr. Diaz indicated that Mr. Lennon received approval from Indian Wells for 250 units and any units built in Palm Desert would be deducted from the 250 units in Indian Wells . Commission concurred with a study session on February 16 . Chairman Spiegel recommended that Walmart and Mr. Lennon ' s project not be considered at the same meeting. Commission concurred. After discussion on the issue of a study session for the Walmart project, commission determined that a study session was not needed--the matter would be discussed fully at the public hearing. Chairman Spiegel felt that as long as all the facts were included in the staff report ( i .e. amount of traffic being generated, etc . ) there was no need for a study session because the commission was familiar with the general appearance of Walmart stores . Commission concurred. Staff noted that Walmart representatives had been meeting with area residents . Mr. Diaz stated that he received a call from Councilmember Crites , who was part of the two-member council subcommittee that would be interviewing for the planning commission vacancy and he wanted to know if there were any questions the '� commission might want to have asked of a perspective planning commissioner. Commission indicated that a viable question to add to Mr. Diaz ' s list would be, "What future issues would you not be able to vote on, or on which you feel you would have to abstain ( i .e. potential conflicts of interest) ?" XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adjourning the meeting to February 16, 1993 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 45 . . • RAM N A. DIAZ, c ary ATTEST: ..� /'! ��7 :�" / ROBERT A. SPIEGE ,. Palm Desert Planning- Commission /tm ... 21