Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0518 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 18, 1993 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ..r * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Paul Beaty Carol Whitlock Members Absent: Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Bob Hargreaves Gregg Holtz Steve Smith Tonya Monroe Phil Drell ''�' IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 4, 1993 meeting minutes . Chairman Spiegel requested that a distinction be made on the discussion/action between consent calendar items A and B. Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the May 4 , 1993 meeting minutes as amended. Carried 3-Q. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz stated that there were no items pertaining to the planning commission at the May 13 city council meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No . PMW 93-3 - KIVA PROPERTIES, INC . , Applicant Request for approval to merge lots 48 and 49 of Tract 26018 into one lot to accommodate the construction of one ,�„ single family residence. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 B• Case No. PMW 93-5 - JAMES G. SATTLEY, Applicant �' Request for approval of a lot line adjustment adding ten feet to a lot on San Marino Circle. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No . CUP 93-4 - BOB DOWNS, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to add an open air patio on the front and side of an existing restaurant at 73-325 Highway 111 , E1 Cafe de Mexico. Mr. Smith stated that the request was to establish an open air patio on the west side of E1 Cafe de Mexico . He explained that the existing alleyway was private property and � the applicant was asking for additional seating in the restaurant. He indicated that the property had seven parking spaces to the rear, as well as available street parking across the north side of the frontage road. He said that parking spaces were monitored from April 6 through May 13 and the numbers were included with the staff report . He noted that the frontage road parking spaces always had spaces available. The rear of �he bank had 27 spaces, of which 20 spaces were empty. To the east of the restaurant was a medical center and west was E1 Dorado Bank. The applicant provided a letter from the bank dated April 8 authorizing use of their parking after 5 : 00 p.m. Mr. Smith also explained that there was a section of the frontage road that was curbed off where the slip ramp formerly exited from Highway 111 . The applicant spoke to public works recently and reached an agreement that this area could be converted to accommodate an additional seven to nine parking spaces on the frontage road. Mr. Smith also noted that the outside dining area would only be used when weather permitted. With the additional seven to nine spaces, staff recommended approval . Commissioner Whitlock asked staff to elaborate on the drainage issue relating to the alley. Mr. Holtz replied that 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 """ a drainage system would be installed on the west edge of the alleyway and would travel from there to the street. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the applicant or public works would be paying for the drainage improvement . Mr. Holtz replied that it was the responsibility of the applicant because it was private property. Commissioner Whitlock asked when the additional frontage road parking would be available. Mr. Holtz replied that the applicant was already getting bids and the project would take less than one week from start to completion. He explained that it only involved grading, paving and striping. Chairman Spiegel opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. PAUL ANDERSON, the project ' s architect, P.O. Box 277 in La Quinta, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Whitlock stated that she liked the renderings . Chairman Spiegel noted that in the letter from Robert Weidemann, Regional Vice President/Manager of Eldorado Bank, '�" he wrote that "This authorization is provided at the discretion of Eldorado Bank and may be revoked at any time with or without cause. " He felt the additional seven to nine spaces being provided on the frontage road answered his concerns . Chairman Spieqel asked if anyone wished to address the commission on this case in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1618, approving CUP 93-4 , subject to conditions . Carried 3-0 . B. Case No. PP 93-3 - STEVE METSOVAS, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and ..• 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 a Precise Plan for a 9 , 701 square foot � commercial building located on the north side of Highway 111 between Portola Avenue and San Luis Rey Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that the property was on the north side of Highway 111 immediately west of the alley and the Metsovas Center located to the east. He explained that the site was presently occupied by the Biltmore Hotel . The goal was to put in a commercial center on the property. He stated that the applicant had come into compliance with the conditions of public works and located the west driveway three spaces east of that west property line. He clarified that this would resolve the issue of the two foot setback. He noted that the architectural review commission granted preliminary approval ; the original design was to be identical to the existing center, but the architectural commission required a different concept. He noted that the applicant would be widening the driveway to a 24 foot minimum and would be providing a full two-way access . He stated that the parking availability was monitored from April 6 to May 13, 1993 in the existing center. He indicated that at the Sub King end the parking was typically 70�-80� full . Mr. Smith stated that a petition was received from a neighbor on San Jose . He explained that the two issues involved the pass-through traffic using San �' Jose and appearance of the rear of the proposed building. The feeling of this gentleman and the neighborhood was that with the development of the AM/PM at Portola and Highway 111, an increase in traffic intensity was created because people now use San Jose to avoid that busy intersection. The city barricaded San Jacinto to the east . Staff inet with public works on this issue. Public works staff felt this street probably was experiencing similar problems that San Jacinto did before it was barricaded. They indicated they would look into the matter and whatever the long-term solution for San Jacinto would be the same for San Jose--possibly cul-de- saccing. The second issue was aesthetics relating to the rear of the building. Staff felt the architect was proceeding in the right direction and the landscape plan would come into play with that. He noted that this issue was under discussion at the architectural commission. Staff was satisfied that through the architectural process and with the cooperation of the applicant they had been able to resolve those issues and recommended approval . He said he recognized that public works would be looking into the issue of San Jacinto/San Jose with the through traffic problem. 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 r"" Chairman Spiegel o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEVE METSOVAS, 72-650 Sun Valley in Palm Desert, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Whitlock noted that staff felt the mix of uses for the center was important to maintaining parking availability. She asked if Mr. Metsovas knew who his tenants would be; Mr. Metsovas replied that he did not know at this time. Chairman Spiegel indicated that in the staff report it was stated that provided that the mix of uses in the new center did not become over weighted with small fast food restaurants, staff felt comfortable with the amount of onsite parking being provided. Chairman Spiegel asked Mr. Metsovas if he was opposed to a limit on fast food restaurants in the center. Mr. Metsovas replied that they would put any restaurant use on the opposite end from Sub King. Chairman Spiegel noted that the people in the neighborhood were concerned with the "decreased visual appeal" and asked Mr. Metsovas if he planned to improve the back of the building. Mr. Metsovas felt this would be resolved with the landscape "" design and architecture. Commissioner Whitlock asked if staff had an architectural plan of the back side of the building showing a 90 degree angle versus the view from the street across from the project, as well as a landscape plan. Mr. Smith explained that would be addressed by the architectural commission, but commission could require a certain number of trees or other mitigation measures as they deemed fit. Staff felt there was adequate room for landscaping. Mr. Smith noted that across from the rear of the Biltmore Hotel there was a row of ten foot high oleanders with the exception of each end where there were bare slump stone walls . He indicated that the palm trees were located in the center of the site. Chairman Spiegel asked Mr. Metsovas if the residents had come to him with their concerns . Mr. Metsovas replied no. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. KEVIN GROCHAU, 44-762 San Jose, stated that his street was a quiet neighborhood stree�. He said that the issue of the aesthetics was not in opposition to the � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 landscaping, but to the way the traffic barriers Iooked � at San Jacinto. Traffic was a big problem for them. He said that he did not want the proposed building to increase traffic and changes to the building was a design issue. On the increased traffic, he felt that staff should address their concerns . Commissioner Whitlock asked for clarification. She noted that the petition mentioned decreased visual appeal and asked if it meant the visual appeal of the building itself, as well as traffic, or the wood barricade at San Jacinto needed to be addressed. Mr. Grochau stated that yes, they were concerned about the wood barricades at San Jacinto, but were also concerned about the impact on San Jose and the aesthetics of any barricades used there. Commissioner Whitlock stated that the commission had as a matter of record that the public works department would address traffic on San Jose. She asked staff to readdress the actual traffic one more time. Did staff say that it was an existing problem that was impacting the area . Mr. Smith stated that was correct. The pass-through traffic was occurring not because of the commercial development, but was a result of the existing problem from the AM/PM and incrementally the additional centers . He felt that the � problem was the intersection at Portola and Highway 111 . He also noted that Caltrans had changed the signals along Highway 111, which increased the amount of traffic buildup for north and south bound traffic . He felt it was a series of events that was causing the increased traffic on San Jose, not this specific proposal . Mr. Drell noted that when the city did the Palma Village Plan and Core Commercial Specific Plan, that study committee anticipated that as commercial development was successful , there would be impacts on the neighborhood. The committee recommended cul-de-saccing of streets if residents agreed. He said that it was a matter of implementing a solution and it seemed Mr. Grochau was not opposed to the cul-de-saccing, he just wanted it done in an aesthetically pleasing manner, not with temporary wood barricades . Mr. Grochau replied that was correct and would be satisfactory to him. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony. Commissioner Beaty asked if the planning commission had the authority to encourage public works to do the cul-de-sac. Mr. Holtz explained that staff would have to look at the � 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 � problem and come up with a funding mechanism, as well as go through the proper channels, which was either the Redevelopment Agency and/or City Council . He said this was not a short-term solution. Chairman Spiegel asked if San Jose could be blocked temporarily with the wood barricades in the interim, stressing that they would be temporary. Mr. Holtz replied that he was not sure of the cost of the temporary barricades that were used on San Jacinto and noted that some of the residents on San Jose might be opposed. That would have to ' be worked out . Mr. Diaz stated that most people would rather live on a cul- de-sacced street. He suggested that staff be instructed to implement the cul-de-saccing of San Jose as soon as possible. He felt that barricades could be used temporarily. Mr. Holtz noted that additional property might be required for fire department minimum right-of-way for emergency vehicles on a cul-de-sacced street, and that would be looked at . Chairman Spiegel said that the direction to staff was to make '� the cul-de-sac happen. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1619 , approving PP 93-3, subject to conditions . Carried 3-0 . C . Case No. PP/CUP 93-4 - EL PASEO COLLECTION, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 2 , 000 square foot addition to an existing 24 , 000 square foot retail center and associated parking lot expansion in connection with a restaurant with liquor license and 1 , 000 square feet of office at the southwest corner of El Paseo. �.. 7 MZNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 Mr. Drell explained that the restaurant would be primarily in � the existing space of the E1 Paseo Collection South building at the corner. The re-grading of what was now a two-level sidewalk in front of that space would be done to bring it down to the same level as the sidewalk to create an outdoor patio, and the actual floor of the restaurant would be lowered. In addition, it could be less than 1, 000 feet on the back for a utilities basin and a corresponding second story above. Also, the applicant purchased seven lots to the rear, of which three would be developed to expand the existing parking lot . The existing parking lot would also be re-graded. He explained that right now there was a grade separation between the 50 space lot right behind the restaurant and the auxiliary lot which was required by the commission in connection with California Pizza Kitchen and Club 74 . Three more lots would be added to those and wouid be re-graded so that they would all be one level and one lot interconnecting. He pointed out that as discuss�d in the staff report, the restaurant and additional expansion required 76 parking spaces and they were adding 122 , mainly because the applicant was anticipating further development of resort commercial up Highway 74 and he was also anticipating using these spaces for expanded commercial use on other properties he owned in the area on El Paseo, specifically for more employee parking. Mr. Drell felt the employee parking � had worked fairly well, using California Pizza Kitchen as an example. Those employees parked off the site in the employee spaces . He said that staff ' s main concern was parking, but felt this particular one was unique in that it provided more parking than was required. The applicant wanted to maximize the number of spaces so he could development on the lots and was requesting a variance to one of the parking ordinance standards . He explained that it was the conditon that an additional six feet of landscaping be required in addition to the parkway on street frontages . That would be on the frontage road and Ocotillo. Mr. Drell indicated that the purpose of that extra area was designed for screening and instead, the applicant was proposing block walls for screening and then would landscape with trees and shrubbery in the parkway. For this particular lot that would be an additional 24 parking spaces that could be added by using walls and trees instead of the width of landscaping. In other respects , the landscape plan of the parking lot complied with the city' s shade tree ordinance and had been reviewed by the architectural commission and Eric Johnson, the city' s landscape consultant. The property was within the Palm Desert Property' s Association, who had reviewed the proposal and there had been subsequent discussions . In their 8 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 rr.► comments they felt the submittal was somewhat incomplete, which the city' s architectural commission also noted, that the south elevation of the new addition had not been designed yet and would not be built until it received approval by the ' architectural commission. The Palm Desert Property Owners Association requested sidewalks along Ocotillo and the frontage road, which was included in the plan. Another concern was that an onsite customer loading zone should receive consideration; the entrance to the parking lot was the existing entrance and given what was now the larger parking lot, their suggestion was to create a loading zone adjacent to the building at that point . The applicant felt that if it was feasible, he would like to do that. At this time there was no lighting plan proposed, but the city ordinance required that parking lot lighting be shielded and that there would be no spillover greater than a tenth of a foot candle, which was approximately the light of a full moon. Mr. Drell felt that basically all the conditions with the property line landscaping at the street were being implemented by the applicant . Staff recommended approval of the project . Chairman Spiegel asked for and received clarification as to the existing parking lot and what the design would be when "� completed. Chairman Spiegel asked if in addition to the trees, there would be a wall around the parking; Mr. Drell concurred. Chairman Spiegel stated that he drove by the project and did not think the sidewalk looked wide enough to walk on and provide room for an outdoor dining area, particularly on the Ocotillo side. Mr. Drell said that on the Ocotillo side they would actually cut the building back. He noted that the building was set back ten feet farther than the ordinance requirement. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. FRED FERN, El Paseo Collection, stated that he was the owner of the property and in attendance also was David Fletcher, the property manager. Mr. Fern stated that they were present to answer any questions . Chairman Spiegel asked what a Daily Grill was like. Mr. Fern stated that it was a super quality restaurant and indicated that Mr. Bob Spivac was present. MR. BOB SPIVAC, owner and operator of the Daily Grill, stated that there were five Daily Grills in Los Angeles . .n. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 The flagship restaurant was The Grill in Beverly Hills . � Mr. Spivac stated that he was the founder of that restaurant. He indicated that The Grills were an upscale, mid-priced restaurant with an average check costing around $10 for lunch and $14 for dinner. The menu was general and ranged from salads and sandwiches to fresh seafood, grilled specials such as liver and onions, chicken pot pie, meat loaf with mashed potatoes and gravy, vegetables, chicken dishes and was like an old-fashioned restaurant, but met today' s dietary and health conscious needs . He stated they were good operators and felt they were well known in the city. They were good friends with all the planning departments where their restaurants were located and felt that even the homeowners they had dealt with to put in the restaurants would say the Daily Grills were assets to their neighborhoods . Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. JACK STALANDO, owner of Daniel Foxx and Escada Boutique on E1 Paseo, 73-042 Monterra North, stated that he felt this project would be good for El Paseo and would balance the uses . He also felt it would add � quality to E1 Paseo. MS . SONIA CAMPBELL, 73-910 El Paseo, owner of Spectacular Shades and President of the E1 Paseo Business Association. She stated that the restaurant would be very beneficial to the prosperity of E1 Paseo, in addition to the revenue it would bring to the city. She felt Mr. Fern ' s projects had always been first class and he was considerate of his neighbors . MR. STEVE BRENNEN, owner of the Brennen Galleries at 73- 080 El Paseo, stated that he was present to support the restaurant and felt it would help their street, the economy of Palm Desert, and encouraged Palm Desert to accept it . MR. BRAGUBA TIA, a neighbor of Mr. Brennen and E1 Paseo Collection, stated that the Daily Grill would help the evening traffic for the adjacent businesses . Chairman Spiegel closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 +�+ Commissioner Beaty stated that it sounded like a good project. Mr. Diaz noted for the record that there was no one present who spoke in opposition to the proposed project . Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1620, approving PP/CUP 93-4 , subject to conditions . D. Case No. CUP 91-16 Amendment - OMRI AND BONI , Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit amendment adding 560 square feet of space to an existing restaurant providing handicapped accessible restrooms and 14 additional seats, located at 73-671 Highway 111 . ... Mr. Drell stated that the request was an amendment to a conditional use application that commission reviewed approximately one and a half years ago. At that time it was a take-out restaurant that wanted to have 28 seats and Ron' s had just gone out of business and there was some concern about being able to evaluate the parking situation. Since that major restaurant was vacant in that center and the parking could not be accurately monitored, commission agreed to allow a 14 seat restaurant. Subsequently they opened and have been in operation with the 14 seats and they were negotiating with the building department on their restroom facilities . The final decision was that they would be required to install two handicapped accessible bathrooms because the one existing bathroom could not count since it was only accessible through the kitchen. The applicant would be leasing the adjacent space, which was right on the corner fronting Highway 111 . To justify the expense of the construction of the restrooms and leasing the extra space, the applicant was requesting that they now be allowed the 28 seats originally requested. He noted that Casuelas Cafe had been open and was quite successful . He felt this center was unique because it was one of the few Highway 111/President ' s Plaza properties that actually provided onsite parking. Most w.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 of the others were built out sidewalk to sidewalk from � Highway 111 to President ' s Plaza . This one only had about half the amount of building area and provided 14 parking spaces in addition to the President ' s Plaza parking. In terms of talking to people about the parking situation, he learned that President ' s Plaza got crowded at noon time, but the frontage road and U-shaped lot in front did not fill up. When he saw the lot and based on what others said, there were between eight and 12 vacant spaces at lunch time. Because this was still a small restaurant with slightly over 1, 000 square feet, staff felt that no matter how successful they were, there would only be a limited impact on the parking supply. With the onsite spaces on the frontage road, staff felt it could be approved and would allow them to comply with the health and building department requirements . Staff recommended approval . Chairman Spiegel asked if the applicant would be occupying the vacant building that was to the north of the restaurant. Mr. Drell stated that was correct . He noted that there had been numerous businesses that usually lasted only six to eight months in this location. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. � MR. SAUL JACOBS, 45-800 Deep Canyon in Palm Desert, was present representing Omri and Boni . He stated that he was a patron and it was a small restaurant of 14 seats and was quite successful for its size. They required reservations in the evenings and in the past week he gathered petitions that had been signed by 233 patrons who had supported this, as well as adjoining tenants including Casuelas Cafe and other tenants asking commission to approve the request . He stated that he was present to answer questions . 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 felt it was important to help any small business to get a little bigger and better. She said she would move for approval . 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 ••. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1621, approving CUP 91-16 Amendment, subject to conditions . Carried 3-0 . E. Case No. GPA 93-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to city council for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and an amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements . Mr. Smith stated that the proposal was an update to the city's land use and circulation elements to the qeneral plan. He explained that from the circulation perspective, the city was not upgrading or increasing the width of any streets , but was expanding streets into recently annexed areas or areas ` which the city would be annexing in the near future. In the Palm Desert Country Club area it showed streets in that area which had not yet been annexed, but which should be annexed at some point in the future. As well , streets were added in the north sphere area which were included in various amendments to the general plan and the north sphere specific plan. This proposal would tidy up loose ends and improve the existing level for streets. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that similar to the circulation element the land use element change was to bring the land use element up to date. It was revised from the 1980 version and included the many changes that have occurred since then. It also included the data from the annexations and potential annexations . He noted that there were two changes in the proposed land use element. One was at the northwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola. It was currently a residential study zone. The amendment would change the designation to affordable high density as a potential site for the city' s employee village. The second proposed change would occur on the north side of San Pablo between San Pascual and Portola . The current designation was medium density residential and the change would be to office professional . � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 Chairman Spiegel stated that there was a study group that � would be meeting on the north sphere on Friday. He asked why a change would be considered now before that group had a chance to make their recommendations . Also, he asked how the city stood on affordable housing and asked if it necessary to have additional affordable housing. Mr. Winklepleck answered that he did not know the exact numbers, but in working with Mr. Drell , who wrote the original north sphere specific plan, the specific plan was incorporated into the general plan and this was always the proposed place for the employee village. Mr. Diaz noted that when the city originally acquired this area, it was for affordable housing and was to be an employee village in terms of the redevelopment project 2 area. As far as the meeting on Friday was concerned, the reason that the recommendation on the agenda was to continue the matter was so that if there were any changes , it would be reviewed. One of the opportunities the city had resulted from the litigation on project area 2 and the city had to provide a certain number of affordable housing units . The employee village was part of that and at that time the city was considering the Marriott, a proposed Weston Hotel which would have been 2 , 000 rooms at Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford, which was why the employee village was conceived. He noted that it was called out in the plan as the employee village . He said they might want to have an affordable housing � designation or P for public, in case there was a Cal State Campus or other uses that were being discussed that could be considered. He noted that the recommendation was to continue the matter, but if there was a real problem with the recommendation before the commission right now, staff wanted to know. Commissioner Whitlock clarified that after this meeting and the committee meeting on Friday, staff would know if changes would need to be made and would bring a revised proposal to the commission on June 1 . Mr. Diaz concurred. He said that part of the reason the city was in this situation was a result of litigation that was filed on the Altamira project by the Bighorn Institute and the County of Riverside. The city was accused of not having a general plan that met the requirements . Chairman Spiegel noted there was no rush on it . Mr. Diaz agreed. Chairman Spiegel asked about approving the acceptable portions . Mr. Diaz said that the commission might want to qo ahead and amend the general plan and get that done so that portion was out of the way. In terms of the study committee and in terms of the I- 10 corridor and north sphere, ; 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 �► they might end up amending what was being done now, but would resolve the litigation problem. Chairman Spiegel asked if it would be wrong to put the north sphere aside and approve the Fred Waring s�ction, and then wait for the committee recommendation on the north sphere. Mr. Smith recommended that the items be kept together and continued as a whole. Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Commissioner Whitlock asked why Mr. Smith recommended keeping the items together. Mr. Smith indicated that it could become ' fragmented with staff not knowing at what stage various sections of the elements were; he saw the potential of continuances for several months and felt that would make it difficult to get it back together. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing GPA 93-3 to June 1 , 1993 by minute motion. Carried 3-0 . "� VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. Street Right-of-Way Abandonment - Fairhaven Drive North of San Juan Drive. Mr. Holtz explained that Government Code Section 65402 , required the planning commission to report to the city council if a subject street vacation was in conformity with ' the adopted general plan. The subject right-of-way was a portion of an unclassified residential street . The area involved would provide no access to any existing parcels, nor did it provide for the movement of traffic within the area. He felt the subject right-of-way could be deemed in conformity with the general plan and recommended approval . Chairman Spiegel asked if Fairhaven was originally planned to go to Park View Drive. Mr. Ho.Ltz stated that the lot originally went to Park View and the portion of Lot G as indicated on the exhibit was vacated when development of the condominiums took place. Mr. Diaz indicated that Fairhaven Drive was supposed to go through to Park View. Because of an over-sight on the part of Riverside County the road was paved, but never accepted .�. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 for a public street to go from San Juan Drive to Park View. '� The property owner on half of that street took it back and the city ended up with half a street and no way to get the other half . Eventually the condominiums that ended up being developed on Fairhaven and San Juan Drive came in and the city had virtually no choice but to approve it . He felt the traffic pattern was probably the best for the area . Chairman Spiegel asked what would be done with that half of the street. Mr. Diaz explained that when a street was vacated it went back to the property owner, and in this case back to the property owner on the east side. Mr. Beaty asked if the property owner would accept it . Mr. Holtz replied yes, that they approached staff and requested that this property be vacated back to them. Mr. Diaz indicated that it was one of those things where the traffic circulation and street pattern ended up being better than what was planned. He did not feel the city should hold onto this half of the street. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, determining by minute motion that the subject right-of-way vacation is in conformity with the city' s General Plan. Carried 3-0 . "� IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. VICTOR HASLER, 44-179 Elbacort in Hidden Palms, stated that he was the president of the homeowners association at Hidden Palms and on behalf of the homeowners asked what was being planned for the land on the corner of Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . There was a lot of work being done and they were happy to see the palm trees being eliminated because the grove was in bad shape, but wanted to know what was going in there since they had not been contacted. Mr. Diaz stated that staff did not have an application for that property, but there were plans for that intersection to to be improved and public works could meet with the residents of Hidden Palms to show them exactly what was being proposed. Right now there was no application. He noted that Albertson' s had contacted the city and they indicated they might want to locate there, but staff would recommend no. Mr. Diaz said that the public works department had a proposed intersection there for Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . He felt they should meet with the residents . rD 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 ` Mr. Hasler stated that they were concerned about the development of the land and a possibility of an Albertson' s . Mr. Diaz stated that right now there were no plans submitted, but the property owner on the other side of the street was submitting an application that could be before the commission in June. Mr. Hasler indicated they were concerned about the lot where the grove was destroyed because two or three years ago there was going to be a Residence Inn. Mr. Hasler stated that their residents were concerned about any development in terms of noise, traffic and early morning deliveries and issues like those . He indicated that they had always been considered in the past and would appreciate consideration in the future . Mr. Diaz stated that in terms of what was planned for that intersection, staff should get together with Hidden Palms anyway, because a lot of times a property owner would justify a proposal based on the traffic situation. Chairman Spiegel summarized that the department of public works would get in touch with Hidden Palms to bring forward their plans for street improvements and that they would be notified of any application that came forward to the city for that location. Mr. Diaz stated that as long as he was here, '� that would be done. X. COMMENTS Chairman Spiegel stated that he was talking to Mr. Diaz a few days ago about Walmart and was told that Walmart might be interested in locating at the corner of Gerald Ford and Monterey, but he kept reading letters to the editor of the Desert Sun that Walmart was continuing to petition neighbors in the area of Country Club and Monterey to go back to the same location. He asked Mr. Diaz for an update on that situation. Mr. Diaz indicated that it would be a controversial hearing. What had happened was that Suncrest and Sagewood, as well as others , seemed to be in favor of that particular location. Ultimately it would be up to the city council . If it was approved by the city council, it could come back before the planning commission for comments . He stated that at this point he did not know what would happen. He noted that the meeting was scheduled before council on May 27 , 1993 . He indicated that staff would continue to recommend approval , but the council would have the commission resolution of �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1993 denial and the minutes . The council would know the reasons � the commission voted no, which was because of the location, the appropriateness of the zoning, and the size of the project, in addition to the testimony. Chairman Spiegel asked if the project was approved by the council , if it would come back to the commission. Mr. Diaz explained that if council reversed a planning commission decision, they referred the matter back to the commission for comment . If the commission commented back or not, they would still go ahead with the project . Commissioner Whitlock noted that the commission had in the past given a recommendation of no comment . XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion . Carrie 3-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 26 p.m. `���� ' RAMON A. DIAZ , Sec ary ATTEST: � � ROBERT A. SPIEG L, a rman /tm 18 �