Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1203 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 3, 1996 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE r.. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None r.. Staff Present: Phil Drell Jeff Winklepleck Sandy Jacobson Steve Smith Mark Greenwood Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 19, 1996 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the November 19, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .� None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 r1 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. PMW 96-29 through PMW 96-38 - MARRAKESH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ET. AL./HACKER ENGINEERING, Applicants Request for approval of parcel map waivers to allow lot line adjustments for lots 2, 4, 5, 29, 30, 35, 36 and 37 of Tract 4274, lots 17 and 33 of Tract 4125, and lots 19, 27 and 39 of Tract 3957 located within Marrakesh Country Club. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 96-30, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit for approval to construct and operate a 19.5 acre public soccer facility/community park on Hovley Lane East, approximately 250 west of Corporate Way in the Open Space zone, also known as APN 624-040-026. Mr. Winklepleck explained that this matter was continued from the last meeting due to two unresolved issues, lighting and the height of the southern perimeter wall. He indicated that the lighting consultant conducted more studies which were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission was approval of Option 1 which would allow a maximum height of 60 feet for the light standards from street grade. That meant that the two fields along Hovley would have 60 foot high standards and the next two fields which were sunk ten feet would have 70 foot high standards. The back field would have 60 foot high standards on one side facing north only which would be a practice field. The other options shown were for 70 foot high standards at the two north fields, 70 foot high standards at the middle fields and 60 foot high standards at the back; P&R didn't like that one primarily because they wanted to take into consideration the Marriott. With the concurrence of Portola rl 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 Country Club, the recommendation was Option 1 . The other issue was the southern wall. The P&R recommended, with the concurrence of Portola Country Club representatives, construction of a ten foot wall. The other thing they suggested was that the interior side of the wall be used by the local JI school art classes to paint a sports mural. He noted a correction that Condition No. 10 should read that lights should be off at 9:30 p.m. Staff recommended approval of the project. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wanted to commend staff, Portola Country Club and everyone that was involved in this project for a job well done and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Fernandez informed commission that he would be abstaining from the vote since he was absent from the last meeting. Commissioner Ferguson extended his thanks to the Portola Country Club representatives for working with staff on a commendable project. He said that he liked to see the interaction between the public and private sectors in coming up with mutually acceptable safeguards and was in favor of the project. Chairperson Beaty concurred with everyone and also commended Commissioner Jonathan for spearheading, conceiving and presenting the project appropriately. He felt he had done a wonderful job. Chairperson Beaty called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1774, approving CUP 96-30, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). Chairperson Beaty also thanked Mr. Winklepleck for a wonderful job and great presentation. Mr. Winklepleck informed commission the item would be before Now City Council on December 12 for the next step. Chairperson Beaty said that 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 Wei i it was very refreshing to see projects done in this manner and with very little controversy- B. Case No. PP 96-11 - GARY COVEY, GENERAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a one story 20 unit senior assisted living complex on property located in the R-2 Senior Overlay zone at the southeast corner of San Carlos Avenue and Catalina Way. Mr. Smith explained that the request was for a 20 unit senior assisted living complex. He noted that Commissioner Campbell reminded him that in January or February of 1996 the commission reviewed and approved an eight-unit apartment complex on this site. He said there was a different applicant at this time wishing to do this 20-unit project under the Senior Overlay provisions of the ordinance. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant for the other project was no longer involved. Mr. Smith stated that the previous applicant still owned the property. Mr. Smith indicated that the Senior Center was across the street, to the east three single family homes, to the south another single family home and to the west apartment units. He said that the site was approximately 36,850 square feet. The architecture was reviewed by ARC and received preliminary approval. The units were single story, approximately 15 feet in height. He indicated that the administration building on the corner was approximately 18 feet high. ARC requested that the tile areas for the administration building be extended on the west side of the building. He said the administration building would include a common indoor dining room, a library, a chapel, a laundry facility and a multi-purpose room. As indicated in the staff report, there were a couple of unresolved issues. The applicant proposed 18 studio units at about 366 square feet and the code minimum was 360, so there was no problem with those 18 units. The other two units were designed as one bedroom units. The ordinance standard for one bedroom was 500 square feet, whereas the two units proposed were 466 square feet. With some minor modifications these could just become larger studio units and that would address the issue of density, as well as the square footage requirement. Staff 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 r.. looked at whether or not the applicant should file a variance and it was felt that the findings could not be made to support it. He explained that for parking the ordinance requires one parking space for each unit, but the ordinance also permitted the commission to allow the applicant to develop three-quarters of a space as long as the applicant could show where the additional 2.5 spaces could be located. That was what the applicant had done. He was providing 16 spaces (80% of the requirement) and there was room for an additional five spaces so that he could meet the full 100% requirement. In order to take that approach he would have to file the necessary bonding to assure that if was deemed necessary, he could carry that out. Staff reviewed the parking lot at a similar project at the northeast corner at San Pascual and Catalina, The Villas, a 77-unit project with 77 parking spaces. Mr. Smith stated that he visited the parking lot three times and saw 15 cars, 22 cars and 24 cars. He felt the City could be reasonably comfortable with the .75 size as long as the City could be assured that the applicant could produce the others if they were needed. He noted that yesterday some of the neighbors came and saw him and they were present tonight. When they spoke to him yesterday, the concern was with respect to the location of the parking in that they were the owners of the residential units to the east. They had some concerns with the parking lot itself and the trash collection occurring adjacent to their backyards. It was suggested that perhaps the parking lot could be relocated to the south end of the property and the row of buildings be moved over. Whether or not that was feasible he didn't know. As a project developed under the Senior Overlay Ordinance, the applicant would obtain a substantial density increase. He noted that the previous project had eight units and this one proposed 20. In return the applicant was required to provide a certain percentage of the units at median or below normal rental rates. In order to structure that a development agreement had to be processed. The development agreement was not yet ready and that had to be acted upon by the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. That was the reason for the continuance request. He recommended that the commission hear from the neighbors and if it was possible to make some changes which would address their concerns, they would be brought back when the development agreement came before the commission. Mr. Smith recommended the continuance to January 7, 1997. Commissioner Jonathan asked where on the site the additional five or six parking spaces would be built. Mr. Smith explained it would be to the low southwest of the primary 16 spaces (shown as a planter strip and landscaping 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 1 on the drawing). Commissioner Jonathan asked if the expected residents of the facility, since it was assisted living and not a skilled nursing facility, if these people were ambulatory and otherwise in general good health and would have the ability to drive. Mr. Smith stated that was his understanding. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many employees were expected. Mr. Smith replied three. Commissioner Jonathan said he would address that with the applicant because he felt that number was low because they would have a dining facility, an administration building, maintenance, etc. He asked if the parking lot was for the residents, staff and visitors; Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. GARY COVEL, General Construction Management, said that Mr. Smith detailed their wishes and he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Covel had any comments to Commissioner Jonathan's question about the adequacy of the parking and the number of employees. ro Mr. Covel stated that the medium age of the residents would be 83 years; that was the national average. He said there would be three to five employees. Chairperson Beaty asked if that was the number of employees expected at mealtime also. Mr. Covel concurred. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Covel had a national average on how many people aged 83 drive. Mr. Covel replied no. MR. MICHAEL HIGHTOWER, 44-431 San Pascual, stated that he was the owner of the second house from the corner. He said that he and his neighbors were discussing this last night. They looked at the property and walked it off and their biggest concern was the parking lot, at first. After reviewing it and looking at the traffic on Catalina Way with the Senior Center, The Villas, and The Garden Apartments, even if only half of these people were driving, they would have quite a bit more traffic on the street. He said they were concerned about the trash pickup, which wasn't against their fence, but back towards the administration 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 building and probably wouldn't be too bad. They have a great view of the mountains and they were worried about the height. He said that he was here about ten years ago because someone wanted to build a two story apartment and that was cut down. Being in the painting, contracting and building business here for 36 years, he did understand that the applicant spent a lot of money, time and preparation in the project. He felt that they could handle the eight units, but 20 units behind them was too many. Almost everything on Catalina Way from San Pascual to San Pablo was apartments. The adjoining streets off those corners were residences. He said that while not many 83 year olds would be driving, those aged 62 to 65 would and there might be a lot more cars then they expect, plus with The Villas across the street, they deal with the ambulances and sirens during the night. He felt the project would be too crowded for that corner. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the zoning was under the Senior Overlay provisions and as a result was entitled to a higher density than would otherwise be permitted. He asked if such a project were to be built with the higher density, if there were specific results of such a project that Mr. Hightower would be concerned about that could be mitigated (i.e., if it were to be built and there was more traffic, was he concerned about more traffic that could be directed elsewhere or if there was a trash problem or specific concerns if the project were to be built). Mr. Hightower said that they were concerned about headlights 12 to 14 hours a day and he was concerned about the traffic and had been a Palm Desert resident for 28 years. Chairperson Beaty asked if this zoning was in place when Mr. Hightower purchased his property. Mr. Hightower said that when the proposed project property became available, he thought about buying it to make it residential again. He indicated that the administration building height was dropped from 23 feet to 18. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the issue of general traffic was difficult to mitigate, but if it was things like headlights, surrounding walls and landscaping could be could be used to mitigate problems like that. He suggested that before the item comes back to the commission, while he was not suggesting that this particular application might be approved and the zoning allowed Senior Overlay provisions, he was suggesting that they think about the specific 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 consequences because if the commission heard about those, they might be able to include certain conditions of approval that would mitigate against those kinds of consequences. Mr. Hightower indicated that there were plans for a block wall. When they went out and measured, he calculated that the applicant was proposing the wall within his seven foot easement (i.e., the applicant's seven feet and his seven feet for a total of 14 feet). He said that the residents have been talking about using this area for years to make their yards bigger, but the applicant wanted to go all the way to the fence line, which was the homeowner's property. Mr. Drell explained that basically it was an easement, so it would still be Mr. Hightowers and indicated that now the city encourages people to build fences on their property line and not create a "no-man's land" between properties. Mr. Hightower said there was a cable meter box out in that area in the middle of no where and wondered if it would have to be moved and there was a question of setbacks. Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification that Mr. Hightower was under the ..� impression that the applicant was taking Mr. Hightower's seven foot easement. Mr. Hightower replied that was absolutely correct. Commissioner Ferguson felt that the applicant probably had the lines shot prior to drawing up his preliminary plans. Mr. Covel spoke from the audience and stated that they wouldn't build anything on Mr. Hightower's property. Chairperson Beaty said this was something that staff should verify. Mr. Smith stated that the wall would be on the property line and if the plan is incorrect, they would be back with revisions. Mr. Hightower said that this would mean that their parking would have to be cut back and it was already short one space. MR. ANTHONY VIRGA, 44-401 San Pascual, stated that they viewed the parking lot as a nuisance and requested that the parking lot be relocated to the south side and access be from San Carlos. There was a four way stop there and it could handle the increased traffic. He felt the parking lot should be moved to the south because there was only one house on that side that would be impacted. He said that the administration building was also a concern although the height was lowered from 23 feet to 18. He was concerned because they have a nice view of the mountains now. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 r.. MR. BRIAN POE stated that he was the neighbor on the south side and indicated that he was present to learn about the project and was concerned about the wall and the height of the wall. Chairperson Beaty said that he appreciated his concerns and provided him with a set of the plans. Commissioner Jonathan informed him that the height of the wall was proposed to be six feet. Mr. Smith clarified that it would be a maximum height of six feet measured from the higher grade side. Mr. Poe asked if it would be possible to have a higher wall if the parking lot was relocated by him. Mr. Smith said that if the parking lot was relocated to that side and that was Mr. Poe's desire, staff would not stand between two property owners agreeing to that situation. Commissioner Ferguson felt it was good that the applicant and residents on both perimeters of that wall that would be effected were present at the meeting. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he didn't necessarily disagree with Mr. Virga's comments, but as a commissioner he didn't view taking one man's nuisance and putting it in another's backyard as an amicable resolution. They as property owners, with the applicant, needed to get together and talk about the traffic and noise and evaluate it to make it work for all of them, but as indicated by staff, they should try to strike a balance and reach an agreement. He used the previous public hearing item on the soccer fields and Portola Country Club's cooperation as an example. He indicated that since this item was being continued, he was trying to give them some direction as to what he tries to look for: a balance among the uses, parcels, the applicants and the homeowners, and because of the overlay, it was almost as if the city was advertising standards for a specific use. The maximum height that has been allowed in there is 22 feet and the applicant came in with 18. There were deviations in the number'of parking spaces and the square footage size, which they could deal with, but if the applicant was willing to meet the standards that the city has asked for, then they look at the homeowners and see what the impact would be there. The fact that there is going to be an impact was inevitable because there would be some construction there, it would have a certain height, and would perhaps cut into the view. The question was whether or not it was unreasonable. People would have to have their trash picked up and be able to park somewhere. The question was whether it was unreasonable as designed and if that burden was unfairly 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 a i shared by one to the detriment of the others. From his point of view he would be looking for direction from the homeowners on how they would like to resolve this and to the extent that they could, they should get together between now and the commission meeting and provide the commission with a little direction. Those were the general parameters he would be looking at. Mr. Hightower asked if the parking lot would be lit at night. Mr. Smith replied that it would be very unlikely. He said that Malibu-type landscape lighting was what was typically used. Mr. Hightower asked if there would be carports. Mr. Smith stated that they were being shown as open spaces right now, but some of them might have carport structures. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith what the height of the Senior Center building was; Mr. Smith said he wasn't sure and would look into that. Chairperson Beaty thought the Senior Center site was also at a lower elevation. Chairperson Beaty asked for action from the commission regarding the recommendation to continue this item. Commissioner Ferguson asked what date the applicant would like the continuance to. Chairperson Beaty asked if January 7 was acceptable to the applicant and residents. They concurred. Chairperson Beaty agreed with Commissioner Ferguson in strongly encouraging the residents and applicant to exchange phone numbers and get together. If there was a conflict, the commission would resolve it one way or another. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing PP 96-1 1 to January 7, 1997. Carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. WAO 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 r.. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Beaty noted that the issue of officer elections was brought to his attention and he asked staff if his term had been extended to December. Mr. Drell said that everyone was extended to January and asked if Chairperson Beaty received a re-application form from the City Clerk. Chairperson Beaty said there was some confusion and he received a phone call asking if he wanted to continue serving and asking why he hadn't said he wanted to continue. He had not received anything and if he was not being thrown off, he was more than willing to continue. He said that he spoke with several people in the City Clerk's office a month ago about his status. Mr. Drell asked if he received something in the mail which he then returned. Chairperson Beaty said he had not received anything in writing to his knowledge. Mr. Drell said that he would ask about his status. Mr. Drell stated that if the commission wanted they could wait on the elections until that had been resolved. Commissioner Jonathan said that they normally rotate and asked if that was supposed to be done in September. Staff concurred. He asked if they followed the normal seniority rotation who would be the next chairperson. Mr. Drell replied Commissioner Ferguson. Commissioner Campbell noted that they didn't go by seniority. Chairperson Beaty felt it made sense to hold the election after everyone had been reappointed. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many positions were up for re-appointment. Mr. Drell replied that as far as he knew it was only Chairperson Beaty. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Commissioner Ferguson would have any objection to being Chairperson if they followed the normal rotation. Commissioner Campbell noted that he was now the Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that it had not been unprecedented for the Vice Chair to decline the Chairperson position. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that since the rotation was overdue, he asked if it was something that they could just take care of and suggested that they move forward. He said that he would move that Commissioner Ferguson be appointed as Chair. Chairperson Beaty asked if they needed a motion that they would be moving to hold the election right now. Commissioner Ferguson stated that it was his understanding that the normal procedure was to ask if he wished to continue as a commissioner. Chairperson Beaty said he hadn't had any time to campaign and that he had no strong desire one way or 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 another. Commissioner Jonathan asked as commissioner or Chairman. Chairperson Beaty said he intended to continue as a commissioner unless the council didn't want to reappoint him. Commissioner Campbell asked if he wanted to be reappointed as Chairperson. Chairperson Beaty stated that he had no strong desire one way or another, but he had enjoyed being the Chair. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't have an objection to that but he thought, and he didn't know how many current commissioners were on the commission when that was agreed to, but he thought at some point in the past they agreed that there would be an annual rotation and that it would be based on seniority. This was not a political committee; they would just take their turns annually at the helm. That took the intrigue out of it. Chairperson Beaty said that if it was based on seniority, Commissioner Ferguson was the youngest member of the group. He said that if they went on seniority, it would be Commissioner Campbell or Commissioner Fernandez. Commissioner Jonathan said that Commissioner Fernandez declined to take Vice Chair. Commissioner Campbell stated that she also declined and they elected Commissioner Ferguson. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Commissioners Campbell or Fernandez would like to be Vice Chair. Commissioner Campbell indicated a willingness after Commissioner Ferguson was Chair. Chairperson Beaty stated that his recommendation was that this be continued to December 17. Commissioner Fernandez concurred. Mr. Drell said staff would clarify Chairperson Beaty's position. Chairperson Beaty said that he spoke to Mrs. Gilligan a month ago; Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure what paperwork he was supposed to have received, but he would find. Chairperson Beaty asked if Commissioner Jonathan would rather do it now. Commissioner Jonathan said no, he wasn't in a hurry. He had just remembered that it was supposed to be done in October. Chairperson Beaty thought they put it off because council for some reason decided not to make the re-appointments then. Mr. Drell said council created a new process, but the commission could nominate Paul Beaty to be chairman for life regardless of the status. Commissioner Jonathan said they could wait until the next meeting for the rotation if that was commission's wish. 1 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 1996 Xll. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 7: � - - Z�0�--) PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: l PAUL R. BEATY, Chairp rson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 13