Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0803 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 3, 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 Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance . III . ROLL CALL Members Present : Bob Spiegel , Chairman Paul Beaty Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Members Absent : Carol Whitlock Staff Present : Jeff Winklepleck Dirk Folkers Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Consideration of the July 20, 1993 meeting minutes . Action : Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the July 20 , t993 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Cox abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Winklepleck indicated that there were no pertinent items impacting planning commission at the July 19 and 28 , 1993 special council meetings . Chairman Spiegel asked about the annexation issue from the meeting of the 28th; Mr. Folkers stated there was an update regarding the status of the negotiations with the county. He felt negotiations were going along well . Chairman Spiegel noted that one thing discussed was a possibility that the county would give the city the money to start taking care of streets , etc . , but there was still a possibility that the area would not be annexed into the city. Mr. Folkers indicated that the city was assuming the county would follow through and the city would go ahead and develop the project area . He said there low could be a situation where there will be a project area that will never be annexed into the city. That was a possibility, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 , 1993 but the need to move forward was such that the city would receive the 1992-93 year as a base year for the tax increment. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Continued Case No. PMW 93-9 - RUYEN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to eliminate odd-shaped parcels that would be created as part of the subdivision proposed in Tentative Maps Nos . 24255 and 27419 . Mr. Winklepleck noted that the tentative tract maps were on display and illustrated how each lot would be squared with the lot line adjustment . Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, approving PMW 93-9 by minute motion . Carried 4-0 . B. Case No. TT 26412 - HAROLD HOUSLEY for ROBERT ROTTSCHAEFER AND JEAN ANN HIRSCHI , Applicants Request for a second, one-year time extension for a five lot single family subdivision north of Crosby Lane, 225 feet east of Della Robbia Lane. Action : Moved by Commissioner. Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving a second, one-year time extension for TT 26412 by minute motion . Carried 4 -0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos . PP 93-5, VAR 93-5 - DR. AND MRS . ROBERT REED, Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design, and access width variance and 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 1993 a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of a 1568 square foot dental office at 73-071. Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Winklepleck said the request was for a 1568 square foot dental office. There was an existing single family home on the lot that would be removed. Access to the lot consisted of a single ingress/egress point off Fred Waring Drive. He noted that on July 13, 1993 the architectural review commission granted the project preliminary architectural approval . The applicant was also requesting an access variance. Mr. Winklepleck explained that the code required 24 feet; the applicant was requesting a variance to 15 feet . The full access would be acquired when the property to the east developed, similar to several Monterey Avenue properties . He noted that the public works department was requiring a small turn out area; the full 24 foot access would be required to a depth of 28 feet from the existing curb to allow any cars exiting the property to exit without having a car entering the project backing up onto Fred Waring. He stated that the project met all the requirements +�•+ and recommended approval subject to the conditions . tie noted that there were revised fire ma.rshall conditions . Commissioner Jonathan asked for the parking space requirement and what was being provided; Mr. Winklepleck replied that the requirement would be six spaces and they were providing eight spaces . Commissioner Jonathan asked how a future developer could be bound to designing his access where it fit the public works requirement . Mr. Winklepleck said that it would be to the benefit of the developer to the east to do it this way; he would gain more buildable area , parking and/or landscaping. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he understood the potential benefits, but there might be a situation where it might not work for the other developer. Fie said there was a possibility that there would only be the 28 feet; Mr. Winklepleck indicated that was correct. Mr. Folkers stated that from public works department 's standpoint they would only approve a driveway adjacent to this driveway when the next parcel was approved. He said it would be a "catch 22" situation. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the owner bought the property without this restriction and asked if that was legal and/or enforceable . Mr. Fol.kers said he believed it was because the owner was allowed access to the street, but public works made the determination as to the location . Mr. `� 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 , 1993 Hargreaves said he shared those concerns , but because of Mr. Folkers ' statement ghat public, works determines where the street cut would be, and if: that was true, then the city had that power and under the appropriate circumstances the appropriate findings could be made. Mr. Folkers stated that normally when a developer went in they would see the advantage for both properties . Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the interim there would be 24 feet in the first 28 feet; he asked if that was coming out of the landscaping. Mr. Folkers replied yes, it was a pi.e--shaped wedge. Commissioner Jonathan asked it that would then be replaced with landscaping; Mr. Folkers stated that later on that area would have to be re-landscaped to go with a normal driveway configuration when the parcel. to the east developed. Chairman Spiegel asked if part of the property adjacent to the development was being used as part of the 24 feet; Mr. Winklepleck replied no, that directly in front of the building there would be a small cut--out in that area to a depth of 28 feet . Mr. Folkers said that all of the driveway cut was on the applicant ' s property and then later on when the developer to the east developed it would be shared equally between the two parcels on their common boundary. Commissioner Cox asked if the owner of that parcel. understood that the landscaping would have to be done; Mr. Folkers said he was told by his staff that it was discussed with the applicant . Commissioner Jonathan said it would be easy under the discussion portion of the hearing to amend .item no . 10 of the public works conditions to provide for that re- landscaping requirement . Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT REED, 45-685 Mohawk Circle in Indian Wells , said he had nothing to add; the proposal was the only thing that would fit on that, lot and it would be a benefit to him and the city if it was approved . Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Reed if he was in full understanding of the previous discussion and the requirement to re-landscape once the property to the east developed; Mr. Reed replied yes, but he did not receive the applicable fire marshal conditions . Chairman Spiegel gave him a copy. Mr. 4 �1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 , 1993 Reed also stated that he just came into town before the meeting and did not see anything from the city in his mail . Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak .in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project; there was no one and the public testimony was closed . Commissioner Jonathan said he had no problem with the project with the amended conditions : fire department conditions and public works condition #10 to provide for landscaping once the driveway was fully developed in conjunction with the property to the east. Action • Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, approving the findings as submitted by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No . 1627 , approving PP 93-5 and VAR 93-5, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4- 0 . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. Review and Discussion of City' s Master Parking Lot Tree Plan Plant Material List Mr. Folkers said that Mr. Eric Johnson provided some comments to him that were distributed to the commission . The first item changed the number of trees from 15 to 11 and they wanted certain types of trees provided; the intent was to go with a maximum amount of shade. fie noted that staff removed some carob trees that were burned and replaced them with mesquites in the civic center parking lot . He said the city was trying to provide shade also. The next item on page 1 , item 6 , said that maintenance requirements should include the automatic drip emitter system; he said they wanted to do that instead of sprays . He did not feel if someone proposed something different there would be a problem, but from experience the drip emitter system would be a better way to go . He asked if the commission wished to review the items point by point or if they had specific questions . He said that Eric Johnson was the expert, but he would try to answer any questions . v. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 , 1993 �M Chairman Spiegel noted that the first sentence of the plan stated, "The purpose of this report is to provide adequate shade in all parking lots in Palm Desert: . " Fie noted that the Palm Desert Town Center had been open for approximately 1.2 years--he felt there had been adequate time to develop trees that would provide adequate shade. He did not feel there was enough shade at the Town Center. He asked what recourse the city has when a development as .large as the Palm Desert Town Center decided to not provide adequate shade for the people that shopped there. Mr. Folkers said he believed when the Town Center came in there were minimal tree requirements ; it meant going back to get someone to do something they were probably not required to do when the project initially developed. The second thing was that the city for many years had been trying to get a parking structure at the mall ; it was his understanding that until the parking structure was built, putting trees in might. negatively effect the number of parking spaces available. fie felt that John Wohlmuth had spoken to members of the Town Center management about doing certain things and it could be that something might be underway, but: he was not sure how diligently the city was pursuing it . Chairman Spiegel felt it was a great plan, but when it did not happen he wanted to know what could be done . Mr. Folkers noted that the city had taken action against people who had not maintained their landscaping and Toys R Us was an example; the city went through a long process to get them to refurbish or replace damaged trees . If there are definite requirements , staff could see what those requirements were but to go back after a facility developed was sometimes difficult to do and staff could only rely on cooperation. Mr. Hargreaves concurred with Mr. Folkers that if it was not in the conditions of approval , without some compelling public need it was hard to get owners make changes and then the program would have to be done city-wide. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that applied to a project that was approved prior to the ordinance; otherwise one of the normal conditions was that the project be in compliance with the ordinance and the ordinance mandates maintenance. Mr. Hargreaves replied that was right because if it was a condition of approval then the city was on solid ground. Commissioner Cox asked if that meant if someone went forward with parking and as a condition of approval of the parking structure, could the planning commission place the additional landscaping as a condition; Mr. Hargreaves replied yes, if 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 , 1993 the mall wanted to do changes and the commission could tie shade into some type of impact that the development caused, then it could be done. Commissioner Jonathan noted in Mr . Johnson ' s memo he referred to changing the number of trees from 15 to 11 ; he counted 16 trees on the list and then he deleted 2 in his comments , which would leave 14 ; he was not sure why he was going from 15 to 11 , which did not agree with his count . tie asked for that issue to be clarified. He said that when he brought this issue up, his specific request related to the type of trees the ordinance allowed and that had not been addressed to his satisfaction . He saw the list, but: did not know what that meant and he would like for Mr. Johnson to come back, preferably with pictures of the acceptable trees , as well of pictures of real trees in place, because he could go around to projects that had been approved subsequent to the ordinance and show the commission bushes that could be trees . He said those people were not guilty of anything, but he felt the purpose was to fine-tune the ordinance so that it was the most effective. He suspected that there m.i.ght be some trees on the list that were not providing as much shade as there wow could be and if there was an ordinance, he felt it should be used to the best possible advantage for shade . Mr. Folkers said that if the city' s mandates were too specific, it would take away from the architectural endeavor or ambience that the architect was attempting to create because sometimes there was an overall concept plan and the tree they might want to plant were shrubs and might not provide as much shade, but would blend in with their theme . Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a valid point and suggested that Mr. Johnson could speak to that issue, but his personal preference was to have a sit,uat.i.on like that to come back as a variance request . Fie would .rather have an ordinance that would provide only trees that the city knew would give good shade, not in ten years , but within a reasonable amount of time ( two to three years after development) . If they came in later with a persuasive argument that another tree would provide enough shade because it was more consistent with their architectural needs and requested a variance because it was not on the list, then that might be acceptable. Mr. Folkers noted that another issue that was not mentioned was the size of the tree . If the developer wanted to go with one gallon trees, or someone else wanted five gallon, or 36" box, it would make a difference in the maturity and how fast ti 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 1993 the landscaping developed. Commissioner Jonathan said that requirement #2 had a minimum. Commissioner Beaty indicated the minimum was 24" box and nursery standards . Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Johnson could address the commission specifically on the trees on the acceptable list, and preferably with pictures . Mr. Folkers said there was a booklet that the city put out that showed this information and he would get it for the commission soon; possibly for the next meeting or the first meeting in September. Mr. Johnson also had slides that would provide visuals . Commissioner Jonathan felt that the trees and shade impacted the quality of living in the desert . Chairman Spiegel asked if Mr. Folkers agreed with the changes recommended by Mr. Johnson; Mr. Folkers said that Mr. Johnson was the expert and he would concur with him. He said that he would try to have the information at the next meeting. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff for the quick response. Action: None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Cox asked what was happening with the two empty lots on the corner of Portola and Highway 111 . She noted that on the east side the palm trees had red tape around them that was unattractive. Mr. Folkers stated that the redevelopment agency bought that property and that was being processed for a future redevelopment project and staff was working with Caltrans to get, final plan approval to do some street widening on Portola and to change the frontage road . The palm trees would be relocated to the civic center site . Commissioner Cox asked if the soil was clean on the west side; Mr. Winklepleck replied yes , that the lot was cleaned about one year ago. Commissioner Cox noted that another issue that was brought up previously was the possibility of redevelopment funds for the eastern end of El Paseo where the old Security Pacific Bank was located. She asked if anything had happened at that end. Mr. Folkers explained that it was 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 , 1993 vow not in this year' s capital improvement program to do anything about that site. A few years ago there was a plan before Security Pacific when it moved out of there to develop the south end by Larrea, but he felt that project, because of financing, had not proceeded. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 32 p.m. RAM N A. DIAZ , 6a-ry ATTEST: ROBERT A. SPIEG irman Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm �."' 9